4 ms·

"voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 10, 2010, ... when voters

"voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 10, 2010, ... when voters said 63 - 25 percent that such activities didn't go far enough to adequately protect the country." The fact that the statement has reversed ("not far enough" -> "too far") rather than the numbers (ie. it's not "63 - 25" -> "40 -> 45") brings to mind this scene from Yes Minister http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Renaud 13y ago
That video is brilliant and rings so true in all its cynical beauty.
- JonnieCache 13y ago
  Watch the rest of the programme. It's all like that. Yes minister is not so much a comedy as a documentary.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Indeed. They were greatly helped by having actual permanent secretaries as confidential sources. Real incidents gave rise to ideas like having bureaucrats get around the lack of alcohol during a reception a Muslim country by having a "communications room" that was well-stocked with hard liquor. Even where they did make things up, they mostly got it right. For instance wikipedia claims that in one episode they made up an empty hospital which was happily employing hundreds of bureaucrats. After producing the episode they found out that there were no less than 6 different hospitals or large wings of hospitals which operated as described.
vidarh 13y ago
That might be a valid concern in general, but this is the question asked: "What concerns you more about the government's anti-terrorism policies, that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, or that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country?" So that the statement has reversed in this case does mean that people have moved from one category to another, not that the wording of the question has been manipulated to change the outcome. Source: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-ins...

Renaud 13y ago

That video is brilliant and rings so true in all its cynical beauty.

JonnieCache 13y ago
Watch the rest of the programme. It's all like that. Yes minister is not so much a comedy as a documentary.
- btilly 13y ago
  Indeed. They were greatly helped by having actual permanent secretaries as confidential sources. Real incidents gave rise to ideas like having bureaucrats get around the lack of alcohol during a reception a Muslim country by having a "communications room" that was well-stocked with hard liquor. Even where they did make things up, they mostly got it right. For instance wikipedia claims that in one episode they made up an empty hospital which was happily employing hundreds of bureaucrats. After producing the episode they found out that there were no less than 6 different hospitals or large wings of hospitals which operated as described.

vidarh 13y ago

That might be a valid concern in general, but this is the question asked: "What concerns you more about the government's anti-terrorism policies, that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, or that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country?" So that the statement has reversed in this case does mean that people have moved from one category to another, not that the wording of the question has been manipulated to change the outcome. Source: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-ins...