Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Emperor’s Clothes In Reverse
Of the timeless Hans Christian Anderson tale, “The Emperor’s New Suit,” Wikipedia the online encyclopedia has this to say:
The expressions The Emperor’s new clothes and The Emperor has no clothes are often used with allusion to Andersen’s tale. Most frequently, the metaphor involves a situation wherein the overwhelming (usually unempowered) majority of observers willingly share in a collective ignorance of an obvious fact, despite individually recognising the absurdity.
I’m noticing that the overwhelming majority can willingly share not only in a collective ignorance of an obvious fact, but also in a collective recognition of the presence of something that is demonstrably absent. To put it more simply, groupthink can tempt an interconnected and intercommunicating populace to pretend the emperor’s stark naked, and his naughty bits are hanging out, when his clothes are just as good as anybody else’s. It works both ways.
You might say it’s working anytime someone states something that should have been self-evident, and yet the declaration has a punch of irony to it that it normally wouldn’t have. Like, sometimes you don’t know you have a paper cut until you peel an orange.
In this case, Mark Davis is the little boy, crying out at the parade “Hey look…maybe the Emperor isn’t naked, after all.” What’s this? We’ve been told for over two years now that he needs to be impeached…that he lied about stuff…and here we are, with nothing left to do but wander around the parade route, ruminating about how, golly, maybe the little boy is right.
There’s No Justification for Impeachment
Plenty of presidents have been hated, and some have objectively deserved it. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon both deserved impeachment. Mr. Clinton was in fact impeached and Mr. Nixon would have been had he not resigned.
Of other presidents roundly despised by millions – Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan – history will note that their loudest critics never launched any serious impeachment buzz.
Impeachment has historically been the desired remedy for presidencies that simply needed to end, not just a gotcha for the controversial ones.
Until now.
Generally, a president’s enemies have known that elections have consequences and the chance to vote for someone else was never more than four years away. That level of maturity is shot to smithereens today, as the George W. Bush Impeachment Cult gathers nerve and mild momentum.
Why is it simply not enough for Bush critics to direct their efforts toward a more palatable successor? The New Hampshire primaries are only two Januarys away, yet the bug-eyed urgency rampant in the Impeachment Compounds on Capitol Hill and elsewhere speaks to a pathology that could become the dominant agenda item should Democrats make big gains in the 2006 elections.
I’ve been saying the same thing for awhile. In fact, from a purely pragmatic point of view, I’m left wondering how the strategy makes sense to me if I’m a Democrat power-broker. How does impeaching the President, or threatening to impeach him, get me more votes?
I understand how there are rabid far-left Bush-haters out there screaming “yeah, yeah!” anytime and everytime anybody makes any noise about presenting the resolution to the House Floor, convening the committee and drawing up the articles. And I understand there are a lot of them. I understand that they’re smarting for revenge after Clinton’s impeachment seven years ago.
I get it.
But the thing is, they would vote the way they’re going to vote, impeachment or no. Voter loyalty, here, is either a non-issue, or a virtual non-issue.
So as a Democrat vote-getter, how does this help me?
Is there anyone anywhere stating that something is dismally wrong, if the history of the American Experiment grinds on forward, with no Bush impeachment phenomenon ever having come to pass? No? If not, then by implication we all agree this is a purely pragmatic exercise, presenting no intrinsic value to the strengthening and/or preservation of the republic. If it’s a pragmatic exercise and nothing else, what’s the payoff?
Eh, here we go again. It makes people feel good.
Well, this is cause for hope. Modern American history is replete with tales of elections that were sure wins for some interested factions, but were lost anyway because someone who was bound to win, did something that made them feel good. The impeachment of George Bush, as Davis points out, flails around grasping for justification, in vain. It does nothing to cleanse or purify the system of our representation, and it doesn’t even appear to net anyone, anywhere, any political fruit. Therefore, as a purely feel-good exercise, it promises to do nothing, save to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, on the part of those who instigate it.
And that’s fine with me. I think they should go forward on it full-tilt.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.