Saturday, June 02, 2007
These things shouldn’t be so accurate
I mean, it’s FREAKY…
|
Drumwaster -- [noun]: A hermit living in the big city ‘How will you be defined in the dictionary?’ at QuizGalaxy.com |
***
It’s like it knows, man… 
Taking the Fifth
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is a Patriot’s Journey post. Also on this year’s journey are JimK, Scott, Larry, Cosmicbabe, and Doug
Not quite as simple as the Third Amendment, is it?
- It protects us from being peremptorily hauled into court on falsified or insufficient evidence. (BOCTAOE. See here.)
- It protects us from being repeatedly charged with the same crime over and over again.
- It protects us from having to admit to any wrongdoing (making it the state’s burden to prove, with the default position being “Not Guilty").
- It protects us from being tossed in jail without having had a case proved against us.
- It guarantees that our property can only be taken from us for the common good. (BOCTAOE. See here.)
But the fact that there are those obvious exceptions should frighten us all a great deal.
One other thing.
When I was over debating the powers of the POTUS at Right Thinking, I made it a point to keep the debate sociable and civilized. I had disagreements with everyone there on any number of points, but I didn’t go nuts and insult people over it.
The Internet is a very powerful thing. It removes the social guards that tend to keep us from acting impulsively. There is no personal risk or exposure to me if I let fly with curse words or insults. Or, if someone wants to search out their darkest sexual desires, there’s little risk to them.
Is it easier to debate someone online, or in person? Is it easier to get your rocks off without anyone watching you, or alone? That’s my point. A lot of social pressures to modify our behavior are not in place where the Internet is concerned. We aren’t forced by social mores to be polite because we don’t see the other person as real or tangible. They’re just words. Or a picture.
I can debate with Lee, or whomever I wish, and still be personable. He’s a person. Drummie’s a person. Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan are people, and we can agree and disagree respectfully.
I will fully admit to not liking Andrew Sullivan’s ideas and worldview very much, but I have no personal problem with him as another human being. My desire not to hurt his feelings, however, doesn’t stop me from debating his opinions (and biases) here, or in e-mails to him.
What’s my point? Just that we can be amiable and sociable, even if we don’t agree on points of shared interest.
There are a few things…..
...that we should understand about this President. Once you get this into your mind, you start to understand his recent actions....as well as his actions ever since he was elected:
1. He is a moderate. I have maintained that Bush is more of a federalist-leaning moderate than most, but he is not necessarily a pure conservative as we would define it. He has steadfastly stuck to his beliefs that government can solve some problems, such as No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Bill, but he has attempted several times reduce social programs and devolve programs and issues to the states, the partial privatization of Social Security being the one that jumps into my mind. That is why both the hard Left and the hard Right hate this guy, and why his approval numbers are so darn low. Believe it or not, there aren’t that many moderates in the body politic. That’s why it took two well-defined blocs of voters to put this guy back into office in 2004...his political stances, on their own, are not popular enough to garner a victory in a general election. Also, remember who he was running against.
2. He has been under siege by his political adversaries and the media since he was elected. In this age of all-reaching media and soundbites, the only time I remember Bush not being attacked or savaged by either members of Congress, the press, or other talking heads on the TV was a two-week period after 9-11. Ever since then, and before (”...stole the election.."), he has been attacked and has not been able to respond adequately. So, after realizing that he couldn’t ‘cross the aisle’ in DC like he did in Texas, he started fighting back when he perceived that he was losing the political battle. Think ‘wounded animal’.
3. He cannot effectively communicate his ideas to the public. This is not because he’s an idiot, but because his ideas and ideals are not soundbite-type ideas. If he would have been able to explain his entire idea about the War on Terror to us in ‘03, he would have needed an hour-long TV special, scholars, and a monthly publication. He’s looking 30-75 years into the future with this WoT, and that isn’t something that we do on a day-to-day basis. I think that he is looking one to two generations into the future with this immigration debate as well. Most of the countries that share our standard of living, along with the other ‘rising’ powers, are going to be looking at a demographic problem of substantial proportions. I believe that Bush is trying to head that off in this country, by being liberal on immigration and assuming that the United States can absorb the immigrants as we did in the 1800’s. However, he is not able to, or unwilling to, attempt to communicate that to the American public.
4. He has no real political allies, as he is no longer useful to anyone on either the Left or the Right. He still defeats Democrats in the political arena, as illustrated by the recent win where war funding was concerned, but he is a liability to Republicans running for office. This is because he’s a lame-duck, and because he is picking something relatively unpopular (immigration) to build a legacy with. He’s a big piece of political flypaper.....but Clinton was like that as well; Al Gore lost an election that he should have won, him having been the Vice-President to a very popular President. However, people tied him to Clinton, and that wasn’t a boost to him. Rather, it was a drag, and a political liability.
Bush is a lame-duck, second-term President. He’s attempting to build a legacy with two subjects he’s passionate about. Both of these subjects are not popular with the electorate, so he’s not gaining traction. Frustrated, he’s lashing out, to use an overused phrase. However, Bush really isn’t a major political player anymore. He’s the POTUS, but he’s not going to be elected again.
I have one more message...under the fold.
***Update: Pertaining to Drumwaster’s salient comment, I have another point: Harriet Miers is a good example of the Bush modus operandi. He makes a choice, stubbornly stands by it, then after it is clear that he isn’t going to help anyone, he eventually backs down and/or acquiesces. I am making a bet....if the public uproar about this bill continues, it will die in the Congress, and Bush will let it go or change it to suit the Republicans.