I think everyone has a mental trigger point, that is, there's something everyone feels so strongly about that if you argue against this point, the person stops thinking and starts getting angry. As for me, I lose it when someone says, Racism is dead in America. I go, as they say, bat-shit crazy. If you think that, I say, then you are an idiot: Go crawl back into whatever cave you crawled out of. Many other people have one of two (mutually exclusive) different mental trigger points: Ken Starr and the death penalty.
There's no sense arguing with death penalty abolitionists that, so
long as there are fair procedures, society should be allowed to be
sentenced to death. They'll either get emotional (you killer!) or keep
moving the line (well, maybe reason-a isn't persuasive, but reason-z
is!) There is no sense in arguing to Ken Starr haters that Ken Starr's
prosecution of former President Clinton was more misguided than
malicious. Also, people who tend to hate Ken Starr also tend to hate
the death penalty.
So what happens when Ken Starr, who is trying to save a man's life, is accused of forging documents in a death penalty case? Do conservatives stick by their man? Do liberals hope that he didn't forge the documents, since, after all, if he did forge the documents the man Ken Starr is trying to save will almost certainly die? Are there snowballs in Hell?
The people who admire Ken Starr and support the death penalty call him names like, "unethical schmuck." People who oppose the death penalty and hate Ken Starr use more colorful language. It really is amazing to watch, and I'm wondering what we can learn from this?
I guess it's this: People who hate Ken Starr and oppose to death penalty have something they agree on. I guess some subjects have bipartisan appeal after all.
Conservative commentators should be ashamed of themselves. The idea Ken Starr would forge documents is beyond ridiculous. I'm no member of the Ken Star Fan Club, and I think that the Ken Starr Line tends towards over zealousness. But that he would lie? This is bizarre.
Liberal commentators, likewise, should feel shame. Having Ken Starr fighting to prevent executions is a tactical coup. He's a powerful ally, and attacking and alienating him when he was trying to do the right thing is petty and mean-spirited. Which I guess takes me to another trigger point.
If you think Ken Starr forged documents, you are a disgrace and should crawl back into whatever hole you crawled out of. And if you think that petty attacks against Starr are worth it, considering that such attacks risk having him on the "right" side of further death penalty case, you can crawl into the hole with the rabid conservative lunatics.
Together you can attempt to drown each other down with your hacktacular cackles: Bush v. Gore! Judges should interpret, not make, the law! I'm sick of hearing your high-decibel platitudes.
We could use the silence up here, in the world of the sane.