Finally, a number of issues with substance, and all it took was going off the wall to catch your attention, getting past the cross-talk ridicule, and fighting back to remind you of your own writing.
<<What I said was that unless a more compelling principle is violated, the majority ordinarily gets its way, and the loser must lump it.>>
More compelling than...? A minority complaint that practices of the majority are violating the Constitution...right?
<< I argued that the posting of the Ten Commandments does not "rise to the level" of either proselytizing or establishment, and therefore that the majority should be allowed to post them.>>
What is this <"rise to the level">? Is not the law either "so" or "not", not "not quite enough"?
This was a point of ridicule during the Clinton Impeachment, yes?
In fact, what made think of your Ten Commandments argument for so long with so few postings, was not Clinton but our Law. Our Law, and the 10 Commandments, are written negatively--the rights that can not be abridged, the actions that can not be done. It is not written positively, declaring what to do or support. That means that the positive--the lifestyles of the majority, or the religious law, as summarized by the revered Pharisee [love your god and love your neighbor] is specifically NOT protected by our legal system or this OT law. Although this negative style was likely written in the 18th century to protect minority freedom, now it is more likely that the tyranny of the minority is in danger with the Rule of this kind of Law. Before I was painted into a Clinonesque corner, you might recall these kind of concerns were my interest in his case.
You, on the other hand, always stuck me as one of the rare few who believed totally in the law. Early on, I saw that Starr believed, or put on the appearance, that the law had no grey area. If there was anything wrong with the law, it was right until changed, no matter what the consequences. There is no fault in the logic and those who abide this viewpoint are remarkable, even heroic men, but it is a product of coldhearted men without natural human feelings [notice reference?]. In testing your posts, I had come to the conclusion that you were such a man. Then your posts on the 10 commandments gave me pause.
Are their gradations to an either/or law? Your 'rise to the level' says yes. Your pragmatic solution to posting the 10, also separates your position from the negative-only, pure legalism. <good policy to allow> and <incumbent to represent diverse groups in such a manner> seems to be moving even farther away.
Putting aside the topic of law's negative structure, I turn to truth. 'None approaches the perfection of god, no, no one is righteous.' and 'the rain falls upon the just and unjust alike.' I have no faith that any person can contain the whole truth; less that they can express it to another. Extracts to the law, extracted to the press, extracted to the public, ruminated upon by me leave me no illusions that I'm using accurate information - I have no faith that much truth gets to the law as well as to me. The amassed precedent continuity of the law, does not cover the gaps in specific information, despite Hegel's solution. Do I mean I don't trust the law to sort right from wrong? No, it means there is a gap between the law and justice. Ignoring this gap allows those seeking power, political leaders in this legal context, to demagogue our emotions. In PJ/BC's case I believe this has been done purposely and heavily. The debate is overwhelmingly of opinions and scenarios from partial, incomplete facts. Agreement on facts and debate on merits of differing conclusions is absent. Personal insight and fuller understanding of the world and others does not come from the debate I've seen on this topic. This is not debate, it is emotional demagoguery There is outrageous demagoguery on the other side on many issues. It is the nature of people to naively trust their leaders and system too much. This is what I fight when I post: I hate being posted as for Clinton, rather than against emotionalism. From the little I know of the matter, there are many plausible explanations to for it all. Plausible is the best I can hope for from any explanation, so far removed from the whole truth. Others seem to need to fill that unfillable gap to truth, with unattainable surety.
Now this is why I brought up the 10 commandment issue. If the truth is whatever the law says, then we have no common point to debate. But if we agree there is a gap between truth and law, then we share a concern of what the gap is being filled with. You seem to support the opinion that the uncertain gap is filled with truth that matches the law. I say, first, that there is not enough information to make an opinion of what fills the gap. Second, that there is enough facts to support many explanations, some for BC, some for PJ. And third, that emotional opinion bridges the gap for most, obscuring your 'fact-based, one truth' opinion and my 'too many explanation' opinion.
The most frustrating opponent in any debate is one who claims there is not enough facts. And I am not glad to be such an opponent on this case. But in this case, I have heard no allegation of solid fact that can not be explained with a non-illegal scenario. The trooper? That is recanted and uncollaborated. The collection of the original information was by a reporter who has a dozen additional agendas. Were it even true, it is not a matter of <intimidation> but "impressing" a date. There is nothing in the trooper story but scenarios. Only scenarios in all the pieces and rumored pieces of evidence.
Were I to lend special credence to circumstantial evidence, it would be the actions of the principles regarding the case, not regarding the incident. PJ remains unique in having brought suit against BC. Wiley might also be considered, but her switch-hitting actions at the drop of a dollar have been well and easily documented. Where are the legions of lawyers representing harassed trailer-trash? I consider this a much broader representation of reality than any specific action I've heard. This too is open to scenarios. The most serious action by any party was BC lying at court. Despite a breathtaking investigation into what he was hiding, no smoking gun was found to point to PJ. This more than anything says to me he had no criminal intent in lying, and no evidence to hide from the law about PJ. It is not an action I would recommend to create evidence, but the risk against the benefit, the very irrationality, carries weight as evidence with me. Since the case had no more than marginal legal merit, due to no Solid evidence, the filing has always struck me as seeking, not facts, but emotional, and prejudice, political ammunition.
What I find particularly galling is this use of an issue that recurringly divides the country, interferes with unrelated issues, and singles out a few citizens for harsh treatment. I refer to sex. The sex in the PJ issue that was valuable for the country to discuss was not how it related to employment, harassment, but how it relates to the personality of the president. I find the idea has merit that he has some degree of Personality Disorder. Many millions of Americans do also. This disorder clusters in people considered very strong, or very weak. A good percentage share what could be the particular PD of the president, asocial. Leaders and criminals are the clusterings for this subset. A demystifying debate, rather than hysteria, would have been productive for the country. A common symptom for asocials is sex mixed with power, much as BC is alleged with PJ and others. Asocial sex is a personal problem, not necessarily employment sex, a civil case, and not necessarily perk sex, a leader's company's issue. There is often some element of grossly inappropriate incivility, even violence. Some cures exist; there is treatment and behavior can be controlled. For our most powerful, and for those who bring the most powerful negative effect, and the many suffering with prejudice, it is time to defuse these issues, not light the fuse; time to make well, not suffer consequences.
I would add, that given a double life, BC has patterns of hiding something. It was therefore not unusual to hide something, even from the court. But, habitually hiding a problem that is worsened by candor is not the same as hiding criminal or immoral behavior, same as with the court. It is with good reason that people distrust those who hide something. And the look of hiding can't be hidden from the insightful. So when BC developed that look for medical reasons, people who look will notice it. Give them a Plausible reason for suspicion, and that false link is made permanent. Bad character is falsely confirmed, explaining all issues previous and future. Debate stops.
For BC the risk was all personal, and huge; there was no benefit. For PJ's side, the risk was small and the benefit absolutely enormous and completely political, win or lose. Even backed with hard facts, this 'alladin's treasure' of political gift would be suspect. With no facts, this episode is a brutalization of our system. A system set up to be brutalized because of its own negative structure and phrasing. |
