Beers's clarification
Does the clarification at the bottom of this page make any sense? I'll quote it here:
Joe Schoenmann's article "Party Guy" [September 28] had this exchange:Joe: "Which you would say is a good thing, right, the pro-choice law?"
Me: "It is."
An audio version would have picked up my inflection, which would have made it clearer that I was not agreeing with Joe's statement. A more complete, correct answer on my part would have been "I am not answering if it is a good thing or a bad thing. It simply is. It is the law in Nevada. Next topic?"
Bob Beers
Nevada State Senate, Dist. 6
<<< Idol Haunted furniture >>>
I understand the point he's trying to make with the clarification. Is that the question you're asking? He's trying to say that when he was asked whether the pro-choice law in Nevada is a good thing, he intended to reply that the law is a fact, and because it's a fact, his opinion of it isn't relevant. The fight over the law is over (apparently? I know nothing about this situation) and he feels that his opinion about whether it's a good law or a bad law is irrelevant. It's like when you ask a pro-legalization prosecutor about his opinion of drug laws, you'll get a similar "the law is on the books and I'll enforce it, my opinion doesn't matter" sort of answer. George Bush, if I recall correctly, has given a couple of these sorts of answers in the past.
That being said, I admit I'm really reluctant to believe that 'inflection' would be sufficient to make what sounds like an affirmative answer to a question turn into a statement about his neutrality (apathy?) and the factual existence of a law.
I'm glad they chose to print that as a letter and not as a correction or clarification. AFAICT, he's just trying to pussy out of his original answer.
I understood his point as well. I just found it far-fetched.