Our President is known as both a polarizing figure and a poor speaker. But I try to be open-minded each time he speaks, and I give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his linguistic mistakes. I don’t ever recall being as impressed with him as I was yesterday when he said, “This is a complex case with serious issues. But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life.” Of course, he was talking about the Schiavo case. That was a concise, relatively objective statement, that elucidated the morality of the uncertainty in the case. At that moment, I thought “Wow, I actually agree with him on this.”
Reader: “Whoa, there! Who-o-o-oa! What’s this now?! You agree with Bush?”
Let me finish. This troubled me for some time. But after thinking, I realized what chord it was that he struck in me. His advice to always err on the side of life is the same sentiment behind the movement to abolish the death penalty. The same complexity, seriousness, and “extraordinary circumstances” - by which he appears to refer to the possibility of someone dying - exist in legal cases which seek the death penalty. Why, then, did Bush repeatedly choose to err on the side of death as Governor of Texas, by permitting that state to have the most (131, I believe) judicial executions in the country? Alternatively one could ask what he meant by “extraordinary circumstances”. The potential for political profit, perhaps? Nothing new here.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my experience in agreeing with Bush with the rest of the world. If I could just help one soul, then I feel this was worth it. It can be a dark, harrowing experience. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, don’t panic. Just remember, scratch beneath the surface.