response to mike morris...
paschal
From pas...@wam.umd.edu Sat Sep 12 23:10:22 1998
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu>
To: rec.art...@wam.umd.edu
Subject: response to mike morris...
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Michael S. Morris wrote:
[...]
> But, given that those same wrong laws still apply to me, too,
> and that no one in power---not Clinton, not the Democrats,
> not the Republicans is evincing the character to go after
> changing those laws, then the alleged fact remains he went
> into that first deposition and lied under oath. A man of
> character would have simply said that he would not answer
> such questions, and throw him in jail for it, dammit, those
> questions were not given to the law or the court to ask. Or
> he would have told the truth and taken the consequences. But
> instead it looks like Clinton lied under oath---a crime that
> would send the likes of a lesser mortal to jail. It also
> looks like he damn well knowingly tried to hide evidence
> and conspired to concoct false testimony. Given
> that he did that, I say that those things are plainly
> impeachable, and---if the Republicans in their turn
> had the balls to do their duty (they don't I fear---what
> they want really is a captive and caged pet President they
> can control)---he oughta be outta here.
Well, I've read pretty much the whole thing now; and there's one thing
that bothers me most of all.
I'm not a Congressman - as an American, I "hire" smarter people than me,
when I vote, and send them off to Capitol Hill to take care of stuff like
impeachment *for* me. I have faith that they will conduct themselves
wisely and properly, look at all the available facts, and do the right
thing.
But also, as an American, I'm just a common joe who sits in front of the
television set.
The President looked all of us in the "eye", wagged his paternal finger at
us, and stated emphatically that he had not had sex with "that woman." I
was burned-up enough at the fact that he put it that way to start with -
that he didn't even have enough respect for the girl to first call her by
name, instead of calling her by name as an afterthought. That told me
worlds about him, as a man and (not) a gentleman. But now I know that he
was lying to me, flat-out lying.
I've never voted for Billary - but when I first saw them on TV, before his
first presidential election, I was willing to give them the benefit of the
doubt, even though they were just a little too slick and arrogant for me.
Everybody's human, everybody makes a mistake now and then; and everyone
deserves a second chance.
Right now, I think that while God gives everyone *endless* chances, and
that Bill Clinton might yet redeem himself, I think this guy has had all
the chances he deserves from the American People, and as a politician. It
seems to me that the average American would be so over-awed and grateful
for the chance to serve in the Oval Office - and so respectful of the
position that the people had granted him - that he would NEVER besmirch
that place with the kind of conduct and behavior that Clinton has
apparently besmirched it with.
I wonder what that Congressman, who talked with Clinton on the 'phone
while Lewinsky was doing her thing with Clinton, feels now.
And I remember seeing Yasser Arafat sitting next to the President and
looking like a potted plant, while Clinton had to field questions from
reporters about the Lewinsky business.
A head of state who really has the judgement and maturity that the
position demands and requires, doesn't do that sort of thing, or risk
putting his nation in the position of looking so bad.
I'm tired of it now. Congress will decide, for it's own good reasons,
whether this man should go. But whatever Congress does, I've got my own
good reasons for *wanting* him gone. I will give him no benefit of the
doubt again. He's used up all his chips.
But I'll tell you this: if he remains in office, on principle I will
never vote for a Democrat again; because it seems to me that the Dems
have the greatest responsiblity of anyone, to dump him.
-P.
> Mike Morris
> (msmo...@netdirect.net)
>
>
tejas
Smarter? Being an elected official has little to do with intelligence.
--
TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
paschal
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
> Smarter? Being an elected official has little to do with intelligence.
That's not fair, Ted. I've spent an awful lot of time watching C-Span in
the last year, since discovering cable tv. There are a lot of *very*
intelligent men in Congress.
I just hope that instead of politics, their intelligence and their
patriotism rule, when they come to decide about this issue.
-P.
Ron Hardin
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/13clin.html
Because of all these mistakes, the President's only
option is to leave his wife (before she leaves him),
resign from office and go out and have a good time! That
should help him get all of these women -- Linda Tripp,
Lucianne Goldberg, Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones -- out
of his mind forever.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
tejas
>
> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
>
> > Smarter? Being an elected official has little to do with intelligence.
>
> That's not fair, Ted. I've spent an awful lot of time watching C-Span in
> the last year, since discovering cable tv. There are a lot of *very*
> intelligent men in Congress.
Fair? Talk to some congressional staffers and find out how bright these
bozos really are. There are a few smart ones, but they are as rare as
frog fur.
tejas
>
> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
>
> > Smarter? Being an elected official has little to do with intelligence.
>
> That's not fair, Ted. I've spent an awful lot of time watching C-Span in
> the last year, since discovering cable tv. There are a lot of *very*
> intelligent men in Congress.
I'll amend what I said and say that they are quite clever in continuing
to do what makes them electable. That would be a certain low cunning,
but hardly intelligence.
paschal
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
> > That's not fair, Ted. I've spent an awful lot of time watching C-Span in
> > the last year, since discovering cable tv. There are a lot of *very*
> > intelligent men in Congress.
>
> I'll amend what I said and say that they are quite clever in continuing
> to do what makes them electable. That would be a certain low cunning,
> but hardly intelligence.
Well, we won't argue about it. But "electability" is one of the resons
I've long wanted all this mess to come out in open, public hearings. It
might make the people *think* more when they vote - think about things
like character, principle, whether a man is emotionally mature and fit for
the job - instead of just thinking about their pocket-books. We get the
leaders we vote for - and sometimes we vote real stupid-like.
(Fur on a frog? I've gotta remember that one...)
-P.
Meg Worley
>There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
The women in Congress, however....??
ObBook: Pat Schroeder's autobiography, released earlier
this year. How I miss her.
Rage away,
meg
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Ron Hardin
> >There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
>
> The women in Congress, however....??
They can't do the math.
paschal
On 13 Sep 1998, Meg Worley wrote:
> Pangloss writes:
> >There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
>
> The women in Congress, however....??
I'm sure there are very intelligent women there, too; I tend to use words
like 'man' and 'men' and 'mankind' generically. I don't feel obliged to
follow PC fashions in language and writing.
> ObBook: Pat Schroeder's autobiography, released earlier
> this year. How I miss her.
I miss Millicent Fenwick a lot, myself.
-P.
Alan R. Light
>Pangloss writes:
>>There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
>
>The women in Congress, however....??
Intelligent women?? Now that would be a novelty.
[Duck and roll]
Alan
;-) ;-) ;-)
--
alight@ / If you like free electronic texts, be sure to visit:
vnet. / http://www.cs.cmu.edu/books.html or http://www.ipl.org
net / My homepage is in progress: http://users.vnet.net/alight
Michael Kagalenko
]>
]> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
]>
]> > Smarter? Being an elected official has little to do with intelligence.
]> That's not fair, Ted. I've spent an awful lot of time watching C-Span in
]> the last year, since discovering cable tv. There are a lot of *very*
]> intelligent men in Congress.
]
]Fair? Talk to some congressional staffers and find out how bright these
]bozos really are. There are a few smart ones, but they are as rare as
]frog fur.
My favourite was the hearing on NSF funding. A bunch of Republicans
wanted to slash the funding because NSF grants were used to study
ATM (which they thought referred to "automatic teller machines")
and "Sinai billiards." They looked like a bunch of CPSU apparatchiks of
the district level to me.
Chris Krolczyk
>On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
>> Smarter? Being an elected official has little to do with intelligence.
>That's not fair, Ted. I've spent an awful lot of time watching C-Span in
>the last year, since discovering cable tv.
So when did it arrive in _your_ peaceful valley?
>There are a lot of *very*
>intelligent men in Congress.
Sorry if this makes me seem like a broken record, but if their "intelligence"
can be measured by some of the legislation they sponsor (such as _another_
go-around with the Communications Decency Act), somebody's been messing with
the dictionary definition of the word.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
Chris Krolczyk
>Fair? Talk to some congressional staffers and find out how bright these
>bozos really are. There are a few smart ones, but they are as rare as
>frog fur. ^^^^^^^^^^
I suspect that you meant "far less common than" here.
Susan Young
>
> [Duck and roll]
Is Ron H. training you to take over his franchise?
Susan
paschal
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
> Meg Worley wrote:
> > >There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
> >
> > The women in Congress, however....??
>
> They can't do the math.
Well, *I* can't do much math; but I can READ. And it's been amazing to
me, over the last two or three days, how little ability to READ an awful
lot of people on USENET have got.
I read a lot of groups that I'd *never* post to - because I think they're
full of fakes and shills. But I do read them; and it's amazing (again) to
me, how selectively many people, who keep saying that it's just all about
SEX, seem to have read the Starr report.
I would direct the attention of everyone, to the major heading (on
page two of the Washington Post's edition) which is entitled:
"The Scope of the Referral";
and to section 2 under that heading, which is entitled: "Current Status
of the Investigation."
Hang in there.
P. ("I might be ignorant, but I ain't stupid.")
Michael S. Morris
Paschal:
Congress will decide, for it's own good reasons,
whether this man should go.
I hope (though I do not trust) that Congress will
decide for reasons *other* than "its own reasons".
The Constitution is very clear on this point---
impeachment shall be for "high crimes or misdemeanors".
Besmirching the office, or bald-face lying to the American
people on television, or being demonstrably a cad
isn't enough to impeach a President in the House,
or find him subsequently guilty in trial in the Senate
and then remove him from office.
If Clinton remains in office, by the way, this will most
likely be because of the *Republican* leadership in
Congress deciding not to push for impeachment. I would
suggest that your political anger will be misplaced then if
it will not extend to include them. Also if they do that,
they will do it because they will be playing polls---yes, wanting
to keep a wounded President captive in a birdcage to have
on display for the 2000 election and to have him relatively
cooperative up to that point---but also they will be
reading polls and trying to respond to whether the American
people really want to have him impeached. On NPR on Friday evening,
people who had just started reading the Starr Report from the
internet were interviewed. It was very clear that what these
people were reading were the salacious details, and the
common conclusion was that yes, this was all very sordid, but
they doubted impeachable. In other words, it may
very well be that the American people, on average, are
not even understanding what the serious charges are. If
that keeps on being the case (and Clinton and spinmeisters
are playing exactly that hand), then there may well be not
enough political will to impeach him, and the fault will be
with the American people (and the Congresscritters who
listen to them).
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
tejas
>
> On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> > Meg Worley wrote:
> > > >There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
> > >
> > > The women in Congress, however....??
> >
> > They can't do the math.
>
> Well, *I* can't do much math; but I can READ. And it's been amazing to
> me, over the last two or three days, how little ability to READ an awful
> lot of people on USENET have got.
>
> I read a lot of groups that I'd *never* post to - because I think they're
> full of fakes and shills. But I do read them; and it's amazing (again) to
> me, how selectively many people, who keep saying that it's just all about
> SEX, seem to have read the Starr report.
>
> I would direct the attention of everyone, to the major heading (on
> page two of the Washington Post's edition) which is entitled:
>
> "The Scope of the Referral";
Reminds me of proctologists.
"Assume the position!"
Fiona Webster
> I read a lot of groups that I'd *never* post to - because I think they're
> full of fakes and shills. But I do read them; and it's amazing (again) to
> me, how selectively many people, who keep saying that it's just all about
> SEX, seem to have read the Starr report.
I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex. And covering up sex.
And lying about sex. As if no one has ever done *that* before.
I was intrigued to note that editorials in several world newspapers
are sounding the same note.
For example, _The Guardian_, London:
Four years of dogged sleuthing with virtually unlimited powers
of search and subpoena, and at the end of it [Starr's] remorseless
searchlight catches and freezes two people in a spot of slap and
tickle. At the revelation of this offense, the most powerful
country in history grinds to a shocked and ghostly standstill...
_Le Monde_, Paris:
This new McCarthyism, in which the panicked fear of Communism
is replaced by the fear of sexuality, cannot be considered just
an American curiosity, something exotic to our Latin culture. The
influence the United States has on the whole world makes this a
menace to us, too. The inquisitor Starr is the product of a long
trend in which so-called moral and family values are turned into
political doctrine, and on which Bill Clinton himself, in part,
built his second term. If he has sinned politically, it's in
playing that game which today has become his trap, and his drama.
_The Times of India_, New Delhi:
Ultimately, President Clinton's unpardonable offence may prove
to be not monstrous turpitude but common humanity. If in the
end he is sacrificed on the altar of America's hubris, his
impeachment will be a ritual exorcism ... for the heresy of
being a mere flesh and blood mortal.
And _La Jornada_ of Mexico City had the phrase I agree with
most: "a hypocritical moral puritanism."
--starting off the week with a bang?
Fiona
Ron Hardin
> I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex. And covering up sex.
> And lying about sex. As if no one has ever done *that* before.
You can't do it under oath.
David E Latane
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
> Fiona Webster wrote:
> > I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex. And covering up sex.
> > And lying about sex. As if no one has ever done *that* before.
>
> You can't do it under oath.
> --
Yes you can. You're just perjuring yourself, but you sure can do it. Of
course, if "confidential" grand jury testimony wasn't routinely handed
over to anti-Clinton zealots (illegally--we'll see how that plays out) the
temptation to lie might have been less.
Nobody asked Oliver North about his sexual relations with Fawn Hall whilst
he was giving sworn testimony, did they? They got him for lying about
matters of state importance.
D. Latane
Ron Hardin
Actually they didn't get North, I don't think, on anything. Something
or other was thrown out as using testimony given under immunity, which
suggests to me that he exactly didn't lie under oath.
The argument is hard to follow about its being tempting to lie.
Temptation is the reason there's a penalty for lying, and it's
a pretty big one to the legal mind.
Nothing about Starr suggests anything to me but a legal mind. I doubt
he's any more or less sexual than anybody else. What suggests
something otherwise?
Incidentally Imus today had a nice couple of lines about Clinton's
Bay of Pigs, and the Clinton's Cuban Missle Crisis.
Fiona Webster
> I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex. And covering up sex.
> And lying about sex. As if no one has ever done *that* before.
Ron Hardin writes:
> You can't do it under oath.
Why not, if you can mince semantics and technicalities so finely
you can make up seem down in your own mind? Clinton decided in
his own mind what he would consider to be the definition of
"sex" and "alone with her" (remember the door was open). Then
he answered "truthfully" according to those fine points. He
may be emotionally immature and deficient in tons of other
ways, but he is very skillful at using his intellect. And
he trained that intellect in *law school*: we mustn't forget that.
I'm not saying it's admirable. Goddess knows, it ain't. But
to make a *moral* case for perjury, as opposed to a merely
legalistic case, you have to show that he intentionally lied
under oath.
It would be altogether different if Clinton didn't have a long
history of using semantics and technicalities to weasel out of
things--to justify his actions as much to himself as to anyone
else. But he's done that his whole career. 'Remember "I didn't
inhale"? I see him as a self-deceiving weasel, not a person
who lied with full awareness of lying, under oath.
In my work as a psychiatrist, I've seen parents who beat their
children black and blue (broke bones, caused head injuries) swear
under oath that they never hit, never beat their children. For
them, the words "hit" and "beat" mean to intentionally harm someone.
In their minds, they were *helping* their children, not harming them,
by "spanking" or "punishing" them. I think parents like those are
guilty of many things, but perjury is not one of them.
But even so, I'm no legal expert. What Clinton did may be
perjury in some narrow legalistic sense. But as all the
Constitutional scholars are reminding us, impeachment is a
moral and political process, not at all a legal one.
--Fiona
David E Latane
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
> >
> > Nobody asked Oliver North about his sexual relations with Fawn Hall whilst
> > he was giving sworn testimony, did they? They got him for lying about
> > matters of state importance.
>
> Actually they didn't get North, I don't think, on anything. Something
> or other was thrown out as using testimony given under immunity, which
> suggests to me that he exactly didn't lie under oath.
No, he was convicted of perjury--it was thrown out because the conviction
was ruled to have been based on information that the liar gave while
testifying under immunity.
>
> The argument is hard to follow about its being tempting to lie.
> Temptation is the reason there's a penalty for lying, and it's
> a pretty big one to the legal mind.
Except when one lies about one's sex life in a deposition in a civil case
which is later thrown out of court. Find me a conviction for perjury in
such a matter. Pooh. Prosecuters don't bother; persecuters do.
>
> Nothing about Starr suggests anything to me but a legal mind. I doubt
> he's any more or less sexual than anybody else. What suggests
> something otherwise?
>
Starr grew up the son of a fundamentalist preacher who ranted from the
pulpit about women wearing bermuda shorts. The entire report is an homage
to his warped sexuality. As a legal mind, he's a dud--he argues that
Clinton should be impeached for "obstructing justice" because he made the
case that secret service officers shouldn't be hauled into court at a whim
to rat on the private life of the person they were protected. Bush
supported Clinton in this. Clinton's judicious argument about the secret
service agents is read by Starr's legal mind as a high crime on a par with
treason and taking bribes!
D. latane
Ron Hardin
> But even so, I'm no legal expert. What Clinton did may be
> perjury in some narrow legalistic sense. But as all the
> Constitutional scholars are reminding us, impeachment is a
> moral and political process, not at all a legal one.
It's perjury in the ordinary broad sense, to a legal mind and
to other minds as well; this is discovered by the clever defendant
when he gets put in jail.
Lots of things are like that. For instance you can be jailed
for saying you can't remember when you provably could, under oath.
Starr is only concerned with the legal, is the way to read him.
What place the law has in impeachment is of course still open,
but it seems to have been provided in order to preserve something
like the law, from outside of it.
Ron Hardin
> Starr grew up the son of a fundamentalist preacher who ranted from the
> pulpit about women wearing bermuda shorts. The entire report is an homage
> to his warped sexuality. As a legal mind, he's a dud--he argues that
> Clinton should be impeached for "obstructing justice" because he made the
> case that secret service officers shouldn't be hauled into court at a whim
> to rat on the private life of the person they were protected. Bush
> supported Clinton in this. Clinton's judicious argument about the secret
> service agents is read by Starr's legal mind as a high crime on a par with
> treason and taking bribes!
Bermuda shorts may have been the whole trouble, if you think about it.
The judicious argument seems to have been thrown out summarily (is that the
right word?). To treat it as abuse of power is actually pretty insightful.
I read the salacious parts, and it didn't seem to me that Starr was posturing
at all on it, unlike, as Tony Hendra nicely put it, the meretricious twaddle
coming from the moral dwarves in Washington, and spluttering with indignation
like all these multi-divorced dirty-minded bim-bobs.
I can read rage at fundamentalist preachers in what you say, though.
Jeffrey Davis
>
> Starr is only concerned with the legal, is the way to read him.
And Torquemada was concerned w/ the 'einous sin of 'eresy.
Starr put his job above common sense. He managed to get Clinton before
the grand jury (necessary to his case since his deposition in the Paula
Jones case probably wasn't perjury) and opened the door on turning the
presidency into a Gulliver bound by Liliputian DAs. This is something
new in American politics and is the real consequence of the
Starr/Clinton debacle. Impeachment? Resignation? Clinton's "Ewww!!!"
factor? Small potatoes. We did not haul the president before a grand
jury in Iran/Contra or Watergate -- Reagan's litany of "don't remembers"
came after he had retired -- because the Special Prosecutors didn't feel
they had the authority. Now, any DA has that authority.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
Jeffrey Davis
> The judicious argument seems to have been thrown out summarily (is that the
> right word?). To treat it as abuse of power is actually pretty insightful.
If you follow that through to its logical end, hiring a lawyer would
become resisting arrest.
Ron Hardin
> > The judicious argument seems to have been thrown out summarily (is that the
> > right word?). To treat it as abuse of power is actually pretty insightful.
>
> If you follow that through to its logical end, hiring a lawyer would
> become resisting arrest.
The trouble with the slippery slope argument, as a form, is once
you start it, you can prove anything.
Ron Hardin
> > Starr is only concerned with the legal, is the way to read him.
>
> And Torquemada was concerned w/ the 'einous sin of 'eresy.
It's a rule of reading, and it would be a good way to read Torquemada too.
If you're forced out of it by the text, then that's what should happen.
Michael Kagalenko
]> I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex. And covering up sex.
]> And lying about sex. As if no one has ever done *that* before.
]You can't do it under oath.
But it's perjury only if it's material.
Jeffrey Davis
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > The judicious argument seems to have been thrown out summarily (is that the
> > > right word?). To treat it as abuse of power is actually pretty insightful.
> >
> > If you follow that through to its logical end, hiring a lawyer would
> > become resisting arrest.
>
> The trouble with the slippery slope argument, as a form, is once
> you start it, you can prove anything.
It isn't far down the slope though. The day that raising a point in
one's defense becomes obstruction of justice is the day we pack should
pack it in.
Jeffrey Davis
>
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >
> > And Torquemada was concerned w/ the 'einous sin of 'eresy.
>
> It's a rule of reading, and it would be a good way to read Torquemada too.
> If you're forced out of it by the text, then that's what should happen.
Pardon me for being dense. I have no idea what point your making here.
Ron Hardin
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > right word?). To treat it as abuse of power is actually pretty insightful.
> > >
> > > If you follow that through to its logical end, hiring a lawyer would
> > > become resisting arrest.
> >
> > The trouble with the slippery slope argument, as a form, is once
> > you start it, you can prove anything.
>
> It isn't far down the slope though. The day that raising a point in
> one's defense becomes obstruction of justice is the day we pack should
> pack it in.
That's exactly what happens once you start the slippery slope argument;
instantly, all distance is lost.
Ron Hardin
> > It's a rule of reading, and it would be a good way to read Torquemada too.
> > If you're forced out of it by the text, then that's what should happen.
>
> Pardon me for being dense. I have no idea what point your making here.
Start by assuming the best and you're a better reader.
Jeffrey Davis
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > Ron Hardin wrote:
> > > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The judicious argument seems to have been thrown out summarily (is that the
> > > > > right word?). To treat it as abuse of power is actually pretty insightful.
> > > >
> > > > If you follow that through to its logical end, hiring a lawyer would
> > > > become resisting arrest.
> > >
> > > The trouble with the slippery slope argument, as a form, is once
> > > you start it, you can prove anything.
> >
> > It isn't far down the slope though. The day that raising a point in
> > one's defense becomes obstruction of justice is the day we pack should
> > pack it in.
>
> That's exactly what happens once you start the slippery slope argument;
> instantly, all distance is lost.
I may be misreading your argument. You seem to be agreeing that Clinton
raising a legal point in his defense constituted an actual crime of
obstruction of justice. Raising the objection "slippery slope" isn't a
magic wand. It's a useful analytical tool, but it resembles Occam's
Razor in one regard. Occam's Razor yields to further evidence. Slippery
slope objections must yield to actual ridiculous results. Like I said, I
may be misreading your position -- you seem to prefer gnomic asides --
but if you're endorsing the view that raising a legal point in one's
defense is obstruction of justice then "Game Over, Man" is my response.
That and a fervent hope that you never get into a position of legal
authority.
Jeffrey Davis
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > If you're forced out of it by the text, then that's what should happen.
> >
> > Pardon me for being dense. I have no idea what point your making here.
>
> Start by assuming the best and you're a better reader.
You've lost me. Sorry.
Paul Ilechko
<rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Start by assuming the best and you're a better reader.
It appears that most people assume the best or worst depending on
various factors. For example, you seem to assume the best about Starr,
and the worst about Clinton.
On the internet, nobody knows you're a Republican
***************
Paul Ilechko
http://www.transarc.com/~pilechko/homepage.htm
Ron Hardin
> I may be misreading your argument. You seem to be agreeing that Clinton
> raising a legal point in his defense constituted an actual crime of
> obstruction of justice. Raising the objection "slippery slope" isn't a
> magic wand. It's a useful analytical tool, but it resembles Occam's
> Razor in one regard. Occam's Razor yields to further evidence. Slippery
> slope objections must yield to actual ridiculous results. Like I said, I
> may be misreading your position -- you seem to prefer gnomic asides --
> but if you're endorsing the view that raising a legal point in one's
> defense is obstruction of justice then "Game Over, Man" is my response.
> That and a fervent hope that you never get into a position of legal
> authority.
Protective privilege was a loser from the beginning, and I think it came out
abuse of power and not obstructing justice. That it has the appearance of raising
a legal point was its cover. That was a good call, by Starr.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Ron Hardin
> It appears that most people assume the best or worst depending on
> various factors. For example, you seem to assume the best about Starr,
> and the worst about Clinton.
Then I'd be a bad reader of Clinton. He started out okay, interviewed
on Imus a couple of times, self-deprecating humor and all that, though.
Jeffrey Davis
I don't know how it could even remotely be considered abuse of power w/
other people like George Bush siding w/ Clinton on the issue. Sounds
like a "Bill" of Attainder to me.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
I've been wanting to use that joke for a long, long time.
David E Latane
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
> I read the salacious parts, and it didn't seem to me that Starr was posturing
> at all on it, unlike, as Tony Hendra nicely put it, the meretricious twaddle
> coming from the moral dwarves in Washington, and spluttering with indignation
> like all these multi-divorced dirty-minded bim-bobs.
Was that divorced Bob Dole, divorced Ronald Reagan, or Newt ("gee honey
it's tough you've got cancer can I have a divorce I've been cheatin on
ya?") Gingrich he was referring to?
> I can read rage at fundamentalist preachers in what you say, though.
Goody for you.
D. Latane
rafael cardenas
> Starr put his job above common sense. He managed to get Clinton before
> the grand jury (necessary to his case since his deposition in the Paula
> Jones case probably wasn't perjury) and opened the door on turning the
> presidency into a Gulliver bound by Liliputian DAs. This is something
> new in American politics and is the real consequence of the
> Starr/Clinton debacle. Impeachment? Resignation? Clinton's "Ewww!!!"
> factor? Small potatoes. We did not haul the president before a grand
> jury in Iran/Contra or Watergate -- Reagan's litany of "don't remembers"
> came after he had retired -- because the Special Prosecutors didn't feel
> they had the authority. Now, any DA has that authority.
Nor did you haul Clinton before a grand jury after he lied about bombing
a chemical works in the Sudan which was open to the public and in which
a number of witnesses gave credible evidence that it couldn't have been
a terror-chemicals factory. But then even here only two newspapers reported
the evidence. The others (owned by North American citizens and/or
friends of Blair) just swallowed the official line.
I suppose the Afghan story was true, in the broad sense, though apparently
not in detail.
--
rafael cardenas huitlodayo swarfmire college, goscote, UK
to reply, edit the to: field to delete hormel.
rafael cardenas
rhha...@mindspring.com "Ron Hardin" writes:
> when he gets put in jail.
>
> Lots of things are like that. For instance you can be jailed
> for saying you can't remember when you provably could, under oath.
But then you can get out of jail for forgetting it again afterwards.
Even if you remember after you get out of jail. Like E****st S***ders.
ObRiver:
Fiona Webster
> Nor did you haul Clinton before a grand jury after he lied about bombing
> a chemical works in the Sudan which was open to the public and in which
> a number of witnesses gave credible evidence that it couldn't have been
> a terror-chemicals factory. But then even here only two newspapers reported
> the evidence. The others (owned by North American citizens and/or
> friends of Blair) just swallowed the official line.
The interviews about the witnesses and the chemical factory may not
have been in many newspapers, I don't know, but it was all *OVER* the
TV news for a few days. TV crews came in, filmed a man eating dust
from the blast site, etc.
--Fiona
Ken MacIver
<rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Fiona Webster wrote:
>> But even so, I'm no legal expert. What Clinton did may be
>> perjury in some narrow legalistic sense. But as all the
>> Constitutional scholars are reminding us, impeachment is a
>> moral and political process, not at all a legal one.
>
>It's perjury in the ordinary broad sense, to a legal mind and
>to other minds as well; this is discovered by the clever defendant
>when he gets put in jail.
Clinton lied in a nonmaterial deposition. That may get you in hot
water with Starr, but that is not perjury.
>Lots of things are like that. For instance you can be jailed
>for saying you can't remember when you provably could, under oath.
No, you can't.
>Starr is only concerned with the legal, is the way to read him.
Starr is concerned with his place in history and is bitter that he
will never sit on the Supreme Court.
>What place the law has in impeachment is of course still open,
>but it seems to have been provided in order to preserve something
>like the law, from outside of it.
Impeachment was provided as a democratic method for getting rid of the
"king."
Ron Hardin
> I don't know how it could even remotely be considered abuse of power w/
> other people like George Bush siding w/ Clinton on the issue. Sounds
> like a "Bill" of Attainder to me.
Bush was interested in protecting the presidency, which was protected partly
by things that have not been decided and may never have had to be decided.
But no privilege is absolute, and Clinton was using it to conceal misconduct,
so now we have a decision on it.
Raghu Seshadri
: Starr is concerned with his place in history and is bitter that he
: will never sit on the Supreme Court.
He also seems to have an extraordinary interest
in the sexual practices of other people, and
a predeliction towards writing pornographic
descriptions. He reminds me of the minister in
Somerset Maugham's "Rain" who was oh-so eager
to save the prostitute's soul that he visited
her room every night. He reserves the right to
break or help break laws, but gets mighty huffy
when others do so. (Helping illegal recordings,
illegally leaking testimony.)
This paragon of virtue is the chief counsel for
tobacco companies, merchants of death responsible for
millions of fatalities. And when tobacco company CEOs
lied brazenly over really life & death issues,
Starr was on their side, so perjury and lying per
se don't bother this slimy pervert.
Somebody should give him a lifetime free subscription
to Playboy, so his taste for pornography does
not bother the rest of the population ever again.
RS
Ron Hardin
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> > I read the salacious parts, and it didn't seem to me that Starr was posturing
> > at all on it, unlike, as Tony Hendra nicely put it, the meretricious twaddle
> > coming from the moral dwarves in Washington, and spluttering with indignation
> > like all these multi-divorced dirty-minded bim-bobs.
>
> Was that divorced Bob Dole, divorced Ronald Reagan, or Newt ("gee honey
> it's tough you've got cancer can I have a divorce I've been cheatin on
> ya?") Gingrich he was referring to?
Absolutely, and others besides.
paschal
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Michael S. Morris wrote:
> Sunday, the 13th of September, 1998
>
> Paschal:
> Congress will decide, for it's own good reasons,
> whether this man should go.
>
> I hope (though I do not trust) that Congress will
> decide for reasons *other* than "its own reasons".
> The Constitution is very clear on this point---
> impeachment shall be for "high crimes or misdemeanors".
I am nah-eeeve. I *expect* the men I hire to follow the Constitution.
If they don't, I stamp my tiny feet and NEVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN.
> Besmirching the office, or bald-face lying to the American
> people on television, or being demonstrably a cad
> isn't enough to impeach a President in the House,
> or find him subsequently guilty in trial in the Senate
> and then remove him from office.
How about perjury? How would you like to be in the position of someone
who has been wronged; and go into court, seeking redress; and then find
that people can lie under oath and get away with it?
I think I went on to suggest that my own reasons for wanting this guy out,
might not be Constitutional grounds; or grounds that modern pols might
consider; but they matter to me very much, and I think they matter to the
country. I interpret "high misdemeanors" in a very old-fashioned way, I
guess - and maybe we need to get back to some "old-fashioned" ways.
It seems to me that the Founding Fathers left the grounds for impeachment
somewhat vague, because what might constitute grounds at one time, under a
certain set of circumstances, might not at other times, under other
circumstances. Even if the spinmeisters can convince people that the prez
*didn't* perjure himself, a case can very well be made, I think, for the
fact that he has acted recklessly and irresponsibly, in a way that could
have set him up for blackmail, and endangered the whole country. As
someone else on USENET has asked, what if Lewinsky had been a foreign
agent? According to Starr's report, the president himself once said to
Lewinsky something to the effect that if he had known what she was really
like, he would never have gotten involved with her. But he DID.
This is one of the things that appalls me most: that he took
such chances with a little tart that he didn't know from Adam before he
was in her clutches! Is this the kind of *judgement* that we want in a
President of the U.S.? His little fling with her, and his refusal to come
clean about it, has already gotten us bogged-down in many months of
distraction and international humiliation. Congress will do what it will;
and I will have to abide by it. But *I* find all of this *definitely*
impeachable. I may be just a little person whose opinion doesn't matter;
but I definitely have my own thoughts. I love my country - which to me
means my country's Constitution and Ideals - and I care
about it's security.
> If Clinton remains in office, by the way, this will most
> likely be because of the *Republican* leadership in
> Congress deciding not to push for impeachment. I would
> suggest that your political anger will be misplaced then if
> it will not extend to include them. Also if they do that,
> they will do it because they will be playing polls---yes, wanting
> to keep a wounded President captive in a birdcage to have
> on display for the 2000 election and to have him relatively
> cooperative up to that point---but also they will be
> reading polls and trying to respond to whether the American
> people really want to have him impeached. On NPR on Friday evening,
> people who had just started reading the Starr Report from the
> internet were interviewed. It was very clear that what these
> people were reading were the salacious details, and the
> common conclusion was that yes, this was all very sordid, but
> they doubted impeachable. In other words, it may
> very well be that the American people, on average, are
> not even understanding what the serious charges are. If
> that keeps on being the case (and Clinton and spinmeisters
> are playing exactly that hand), then there may well be not
> enough political will to impeach him, and the fault will be
> with the American people (and the Congresscritters who
> listen to them).
Well, this brings me to something that has had me thinking all day. Since
when is impeachment supposed to be based on "polls" and public opinion?
The Prez seems to have guided policy by polls; and that's just another
reason why *I* personally want him out - I want things to be guided by
PRINCIPLE, no matter which party is in charge. But does Congress now do
impeachment-by-poll, too? Gee, maybe we just ought to have a referendum,
and trash the Constitution entirely!
I'm not an expert on the Independent Counsel law, or even on the
Constitution. But it seems to me that the Congress has the obligation to
study Starr's report and decide whether or not the president has committed
impeachable offenses, or not, based on a variety of things - but NOT on
public opinion! Am I wrong about that?
I tend to talk to a lot of people out in "middle America", on a daily
basis in my work; and you are correct - a whole lot of Americans don't
know at all what the serious charges are.
My feeling that the Democrats have to take the most responsibility, is
because they nominated him in the first place. They were first
responsible for giving us this sleazy louse. I do not belong to either
party, and have voted every-which-way in my lifetime; but I will be
watching VERY closely to see how this thing is handled by *both* parties.
And I will only vote, in future, for the ones who handle it like MEN
should: men who love our Constitution more than they love their own little,
transient, political lives and parties.
At any rate:
Now that I know that Schmucko is a dishonest jerk who treats women like
dirt even while women champion him, there are a few other things I want to
know. I have a right to know them, just as I had a right to know whether
Richard Nixon was a crook -
(and right now, Nixon is smelling like a rose, compared with Clinton -
does what goes around, come around???) -
And I don't think for a minute that Kenneth Starr will let me down.
In the meantime, now that I've gotten over my shock and anger at what has
been done to my country, I'm kicking back and having a good time with
this. It's hilarious to watch Clinton trying to weasel his way along that
very narrow path between his political problems on the one side, and his
legal ones on the other. And that Kendall guy, with his strange approach
to language which tries to make black seem white and down seem up, is just
about the best friend the Republicans have ever had!
Thank you for your good response.
-P.
ObBook(!): Kenneth Starr's Referral to the U.S. House of Representatives,
now available from any good book-purveyor near *yew*!
Michael S. Morris
Fiona writes:
I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex.
And covering up sex. And lying about sex. As
if no one has ever done *that* before.
Which is the Brave, New World the feminists
have given us with their sexual harassment
law. Mike Morris gets sued for sexual
harassment, gets asked about his sexual history
on a fishing expedition by the plaintiff's lawyers,
and denies there under oath something that he did
in fact do, and he goes to jail on perjury. He's a
businessman, after all. Of questionably Republican
proclivities, don't you know.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a Democrat.
His lying under oath is a mere peccadillo, which
we should all be big enough to *forgive* him for,
since it was only about sex, and since he's asked
us for our forgiveness.
I think the foreign editorialists you quote
*do not* understand what it is they are talking
about. I think they have a prejudice about America
being a place which is prudish (contrast implied
to European sophistication) about sex, and they
are just writing out of that.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Fiona Webster
> But no privilege is absolute, and Clinton was using it
> to conceal misconduct, so now we have a decision on it.
In way are you defining "misconduct," Ron? Impropriety,
or wrongdoing?
--curious,
Fiona
Ron Hardin
Perjury and its kin, ie. what Starr told the court that
decided against protective privilege. All Starr needs is a good
reason, given his job.
Ron Hardin
the President with Monica on her knees, but to verify details of
Lewinsky's accounts.
Her stories dovetail intricately with discoverable facts; Clinton's
stories do not.
That's why it's fatal to Clinton.
Ron Hardin
> When Germany finally made marital rape illegal, conservatives complained
> bitterly as well.
Conservatives are poets, when they're good. Buckley complained,
on the grounds that you can't have marital rape, only assault.
paschal
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
> paschal wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
> >
> > > Meg Worley wrote:
> > > > >There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
> > > >
> > > > The women in Congress, however....??
> > >
> > > They can't do the math.
> >
> > Well, *I* can't do much math; but I can READ. And it's been amazing to
> > me, over the last two or three days, how little ability to READ an awful
> > lot of people on USENET have got.
> >
> > I read a lot of groups that I'd *never* post to - because I think they're
> > full of fakes and shills. But I do read them; and it's amazing (again) to
> > me, how selectively many people, who keep saying that it's just all about
> > SEX, seem to have read the Starr report.
> >
> > I would direct the attention of everyone, to the major heading (on
> > page two of the Washington Post's edition) which is entitled:
> >
> > "The Scope of the Referral";
>
> Reminds me of proctologists.
>
> "Assume the position!"
In the Green Room?
-P.
>
> --
> TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
> 'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
> Hank Snow THE RHUMBA BOOGIE
>
>
Dylan and Kamala
>Which is the Brave, New World the feminists
>have given us with their sexual harassment
>law.
Oh ferpetesake, Mike, you're smarter than that.
>Mike Morris gets sued for sexual
>harassment, [...] and he goes to jail [...] He's
>[...] of questionably Republican proclivities,
>don't you know.
>
>Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a Democrat.
>His lying under oath is a mere peccadillo, which
>we should all be big enough to *forgive* him for, [...]
Your argument would be a lot more convincing were it not for the fact that,
of the four major political figures who've been attacked for their sex lives
in the past decade or so (I'm thinking of Hart, Packwood, Thomas, and
Clinton), three have been Democrats, and the single Republican was
eventually vindicated and enjoys a successful career on the supreme court
today, whereas the careers of two of the Democrats were ruined, and the
third's fate remains up in the air. It really surprises me that you should
have such party-specific blinders on--I didn't think that was one of your
weaknesses.
Dylan
=dbd=
Michael S. Morris
Fiona wrote:
I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex.
And covering up sex. And lying about sex. As
if no one has ever done *that* before.
I said:
Which is the Brave, New World the feminists
have given us with their sexual harassment
law.
Silke:
What about the Brave Old World with
its laws against anal, oral, a-tergo,
adulterous, homosexual sex?
It is my understanding that that Brave Old World
is still around, in part thanks to William Jefferson
Clinton. The man *campaigned* on abolishing the ban
against gays serving in the military, and then he
promptly backed down in office on that promise when
it looked like it was going to be politically costly
for him to fight it. I don't know about you, but I
have held that particular lie against him politically
for a long time.
Silke:
But never mind. In MM's world it's okay
(well, not okay, but LEGAL) to harrass and
intimidate your employees if you happen to
be hot for them. Or is that not what you mean
to say, by any chance?
You are an ignorant twit, Silke. In the
world as it *really* is people make sexual
passes and sexual jokes at one another all
of the time, regardless of company policy
to the contrary. But, soon as somebody's
wittow feewers get hurt, the feminist
sponsored harassment law *means* that the guy
with the deep pockets---the company---gets
sued, and even if the company wins it *has*
to spend tens of thousands of dollars doing
so, and probably institutes a "Sexual Harassment
Sensitivity Training Program" mandatory for
all employees, just to be on the "safe side".
In the front office at Morris Machine right
now are two female employees, a receptionist
and a material buyer. I won't go into the psychology
of their interaction with one another, but I
will say that Chris and I (owners and officers
of the corporation) reside in an office
just off of theirs, the door often open. *They*
listen all day long to these 2 stupid "radio
personalities" who play a minimum of music
and laugh a maximum at their own jokes. And *all*
of those jokes are sexual in content. Many of them
end up getting repeated to Chris or to me. Now what
the fuck do *you*, Silke advise me to do as owner?
The legalistic recommendation is clear---censorship
of the radio, censorship of the sexually-laden
jokes. By company decree. A written policy that every
employee *has* to sign off on. Because, if we don't
do that, then some day maybe somebody's feelings
get hurt, and she sues, and Chris and I pay bigtime.
I've held the line against this, dammit, because I
don't want an office environment dictated to me by
lawyers---but this is a growth industry among lawyers.
As for your question, yes, Silke, *I* think
it ought to be *legal* to tell an employee
of mine she has to submit to anal sex with me or be
fired. (Assuming she doesn't have something
to the contrary stated in her employment
contract, so that my demand is not breach
of that contract.) This is because *I* believe that
prostitution, and therefore pimping, ought to
*legal* and not *illegal*. In my opinion, the
law ought never to have been that Paula Jones
could have brought up her case in the first place.
All the rest---Monica, Clinton lying under oath,
witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and millions
of dollars of cost to taxpayers, need never have
happened. But, unfortunately, the law is different
than what I wish it were---the law goes some
socialistic/fascistic distance towards making
one's job a "right", and the state the active
protector of that "right", and as it stands right
now, if a female employee even *thinks* I have
tried to hit on her, even once, and she doesn't like
that---for any reason, even a year later in retrospect---
the law empowers her and encourages her to cost me a
great deal of money, at the bare minimum. This is wrong law.
This is bad law. This is unfair law. It also happens to
be at the source of Clinton's problems in the
first place, and it should go.
Silke:
When Germany finally made marital
rape illegal, conservatives complained
bitterly as well.
You're a twit, as I just said. You couldn't recognize
a conservate if you read him in _The National Review_,
as you claim to be able to do.
The laws you are defending boil down in
practice to their makers---Bill Clinton
in particular---likely to go free for their
blatant violation, and Mike Morris
in particular standing in danger of losing
lots of money (to lawyers) at the very least
while all of the time being a Boy Scout. My
indignation about this is righteous.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Silke:
So are rapists.
Guilt by association, Dr. Weineck?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
I said:
Which is the Brave, New World the feminists
have given us with their sexual harassment
law.
Dylan:
Oh ferpetesake, Mike, you're smarter than that.
No, I'm afraid I'm not, Dylan. As I understand
the allegation in the Jones case, Clinton
hit on her in a crude way, she refused, he
accepted no for an answer. Why did the law ever
give her the power to sue him for that? There
is no excuse for such a law.
I said:
Mike Morris gets sued for sexual
harassment, [...] and he goes to jail [...] He's
[...] of questionably Republican proclivities,
don't you know.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a Democrat.
His lying under oath is a mere peccadillo, which
we should all be big enough to *forgive* him for, [...]
Dylan:
Your argument would be a lot more convincing
were it not for the fact that, of the four
major political figures who've been attacked
for their sex lives in the past decade or so
(I'm thinking of Hart, Packwood, Thomas, and
Clinton), three have been Democrats, and the
single Republican was eventually vindicated
and enjoys a successful career on the supreme court
today, whereas the careers of two of the Democrats
were ruined, and the third's fate remains up in
the air. It really surprises me that you should
have such party-specific blinders on--I didn't
think that was one of your weaknesses.
You do not understand my point, Dylan. I own
a business (in point of fact I am not a Republican
by any stretch of the imagination---but you'll notice
how quickly Silke jumped on "conservative"). Even
though I do not have much cash in the bank, I have
assets (a building and its machinery) that could total
a few million (depending on how you count). I also am
"small fry" in the sense that Steven Spielberg and Tom
Hanks were unlikely to contribute to my legal
defense fund. I could lose *everything*
by being found against in a sexual harassment
suit. I could lose a great deal of money (tens
of thousands of dollars) by just being accused
of harassment. I'm also pretty sure I would go to
jail for lying under oath in the way that Clinton
plainly did.
Yes, Mr. President, I agree with you that you
were asked questions no one should have to answer.
But the fact is, the law is empowered to ask those
questions, and you have sworn to uphold the law.
There is a way to make so that no one in the future
will be forced to answer such questions. Why aren't
you fighting for that?
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
Michael S. Morris
Paschal writes:
How about perjury? How would you like
to be in the position of someone who has
been wronged; and go into court, seeking
redress; and then find that people can lie
under oath and get away with it?
Careful. I didn't say he didn't deserve to be
removed from office. I very much think he does,
as I understand perjury, and how it is he plainly
lied under oath. If it turns out I am wrong about
this---that I could be caught in a lie like that
and would not be convicted of a crime because of it---
then I would be willing to extend to Clinton the
same consideration. I think what he did (in lying)
is very much a high crime, destructive of the Rule of Law
itself if left unpunished in a magistrate.
Paschal:
Even if the spinmeisters can convince people that the prez
*didn't* perjure himself, a case can very well be made,
I think, for the fact that he has acted recklessly and
irresponsibly, in a way that could have set him up for
blackmail, and endangered the whole country.
I agree. However, prior to his lying under oath
about it, I don't see that any of this recklessness
constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanour". It
just means we made a bad choice for prez (heck,
I don't even believe this, sicne I think both Bush
and Dole were worse choices). It means we ought to
pick somebody different next time.
Paschal (regarding Clinton's recklessness):
But *I* find all of this *definitely*
impeachable.
I agree with you that his recklessness was
reckless, a failure of duty in office. But
I do not agree that if all he had done is
have sex with Monica, then that would be
impeachable. I most emphatically disagree.
As for our country's security, it bothers me
a heckuva lot more that Clinton seems to spend
half of his time fundraising for political campaigns.
I said:
If Clinton remains in office, by the way, this will most
likely be because of the *Republican* leadership in
Congress deciding not to push for impeachment. I would
suggest that your political anger will be misplaced then if
it will not extend to include them. Also if they do that,
they will do it because they will be playing polls---yes, wanting
to keep a wounded President captive in a birdcage to have
on display for the 2000 election and to have him relatively
cooperative up to that point---but also they will be
reading polls and trying to respond to whether the American
people really want to have him impeached. On NPR on Friday evening,
people who had just started reading the Starr Report from the
internet were interviewed. It was very clear that what these
people were reading were the salacious details, and the
common conclusion was that yes, this was all very sordid, but
they doubted impeachable. In other words, it may
very well be that the American people, on average, are
not even understanding what the serious charges are. If
that keeps on being the case (and Clinton and spinmeisters
are playing exactly that hand), then there may well be not
enough political will to impeach him, and the fault will be
with the American people (and the Congresscritters who
listen to them).
Paschal:
Well, this brings me to something that has had me
thinking all day. Since when is impeachment supposed
to be based on "polls" and public opinion?
Since never. But, my point is that the Republican
leadership---especially Newt "Motor Mouth" Gingrich---
is cut from the same moral vacuity the President is.
(Newt alone by shooting off his "let's make a deal"
mouth at the wrong time could single-handedly derail
impeachment.) So, in fact they do read the polls
to figure out what they should do. Not all of them,
certainly, but enough of them that impeachment
won't be in the cards without them.
Paschal:
The Prez seems to have guided policy by
polls; and that's just another reason why
*I* personally want him out -
I agree with you that shapes himself to
fit what he thinks we want to hear. I agree
with you that this is a reason for being politically
opposed to him, for wanting him out of office.
Again, however, I do not consider following polls
to be "a high crime or misdemeanour"---I think
it bad, irresponsible government, but if that
were all there is against him, it's tough, he stays.
Also, again, the Republican leadership is
exactly this "let's read the polls and consult
the analysts before we decide what to do"
type of leadership. Bob Dole, for instance,
was exactly that kind of man, and George
Bush never did anything in his life without
asking for the consensus script. So, unless
you disagree with this assessment I am making
of the Republicans, it seems to me you should
want a whole bunch of them (as well as a bunch
of their Democratic fellows) out of office, too.
Paschal:
I want things to be guided by
PRINCIPLE, no matter which party
is in charge. But does Congress now
do impeachment-by-poll, too? Gee,
maybe we just ought to have a referendum,
and trash the Constitution entirely!
I think that is exactly the way it is tending---
and the Republicans are just as much at fault
about this.
Paschal:
I'm not an expert on the Independent Counsel
law, or even on the Constitution. But it
seems to me that the Congress has the obligation
to study Starr's report and decide whether or not
the president has committed impeachable offenses,
or not, based on a variety of things - but NOT on
public opinion! Am I wrong about that?
You are being brazenly inconsistent with yourself.
Earlier you are saying you want him removed from office,
for things that he did that are wrong, but which are
plainly not "high crimes or misdemeanours". You don't
care, that's YOUR opinion. Or something along that line.
Now we find you wanting Congress not to pay attention
to public opinion.
Yes, I think you are, in part, wrong about that.
We do not have a vote of no confidence where
an unpopular executive can be removed by a
popularity vote. The standards for impeachment are
higher---impeachment was intended by the Founders
to be rare. Nevertheless, the Founders left the removal
of a President to 2/3 of each of the two Houses, and
that is necessarily a politically constituted
deliberative assembly, not a jury. So, yes, I
think it plain that the Founders meant politics
(and hence, opinion polls and thoughts of re-election)
to bear somewhat on the process.
Paschal:
I tend to talk to a lot of people out
in "middle America", on a daily basis
in my work;
For what it's worth, I think you arrogate to
yourself a little too much this stance as the
"voice of middle America". I do this too
much myself, too, but as opposed to whom?
Are people who would dare disagree with you
"fringe America"?
Paschal:
and you are correct - a whole lot of Americans
don't know at all what the serious charges are.
I'm waiting to see how it plays. The fat lady
hasn't sung yet. But, clearly there *is* a fight
over public opinion. The Starr Report accuses
him of lying under oath. The White House rebuttal
claims that they're just punishing him for sex
and the rest is niggling legal details that
anybody could be caught by. How the public decides
*will* matter to how this plays out in Congress.
Paschal:
My feeling that the Democrats have to
take the most responsibility, is because
they nominated him in the first place.
They were first responsible for giving us
this sleazy louse.
My impression is that the Democrats are
ready to dump him as a liability already.
It is the Republicans who have made
more conciliatory "middle-way" sounds.
I think this is because they want a
captive, wounded President to keep
in a birdcage---they do *not* want Al
Gore to get a turn at the presidency before
the 2000 election.
Paschal:
(and right now, Nixon is smelling like a
rose, compared with Clinton -
I don't know how you can say this. Nixon ran
a private police force out of the White House.
Clinton brazenly violated the Rule of Law,
but the start of this whole thing---the sex---
isn't even close in seriousness to Nixon's power
lust.
Paschal:
does what goes
around, come around???) -
I'm afraid you'll have to take that one up with
one of the Nietzscheans around here. I've never
thought "eternal return" other than nonsense, myself.
Paschal:
And that Kendall guy, with his strange approach
to language which tries to make black seem white
and down seem up, is just about the best friend
the Republicans have ever had!
Agreed. But, Clinton is in deep doggie-do-do. If
he once admits the perjury, he's done for. If he
is not pardoned (and he may not be), he could well
end up doing time for it after a legal trial
after he is removed from office. So, Kendall's
doing his level best as Clinton's attorney to
fight the most serious charge. But Clinton's
conduct there is indefensible, so Kendall's defense
ends up looking ridiculous.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)
tejas
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
>
> > paschal wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 13 Sep 1998, Ron Hardin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Meg Worley wrote:
> > > > > >There are a lot of *very* intelligent men in Congress.
> > > > >
> > > > > The women in Congress, however....??
> > > >
> > > > They can't do the math.
> > >
> > > Well, *I* can't do much math; but I can READ. And it's been amazing to
> > > me, over the last two or three days, how little ability to READ an awful
> > > lot of people on USENET have got.
> > >
> > > I read a lot of groups that I'd *never* post to - because I think they're
> > > full of fakes and shills. But I do read them; and it's amazing (again) to
> > > me, how selectively many people, who keep saying that it's just all about
> > > SEX, seem to have read the Starr report.
> > >
> > > I would direct the attention of everyone, to the major heading (on
> > > page two of the Washington Post's edition) which is entitled:
> > >
> > > "The Scope of the Referral";
> >
> > Reminds me of proctologists.
> >
> > "Assume the position!"
>
> In the Green Room?
On Jerry Springer?
tejas
You've never met any horny men in power, have you? Pheromones,
pascualina,
pheromones. Now what if Slick Willie liked young lithe men? Now there
would
be something to stir up that prude of prudes, Ken Starr.
Mussolini liked to boff the help, too, and did it fully clothed as well.
LBJ did, too, but he was a bit more circumspect and carried a bigger
stick.
And the international humiliation comes not from his flings, but from
our
outmoded, bluenosed puritanism...
ObBook: THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE by Gay Talese
Richard Harter
>Your argument would be a lot more convincing were it not for the fact that,
>of the four major political figures who've been attacked for their sex lives
>in the past decade or so (I'm thinking of Hart, Packwood, Thomas, and
>Clinton), three have been Democrats, and the single Republican was
>eventually vindicated and enjoys a successful career on the supreme court
>today, whereas the careers of two of the Democrats were ruined, and the
>third's fate remains up in the air. It really surprises me that you should
>have such party-specific blinders on--I didn't think that was one of your
>weaknesses.
Packwood is a Democrat? When did that happen?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
With friends like these who needs enemies.
tejas
>
> Monday, the 14th of September, 1998
>
> I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex.
> And covering up sex. And lying about sex. As
> if no one has ever done *that* before.
>
> have given us with their sexual harassment
> harassment, gets asked about his sexual history
> on a fishing expedition
Never mix sex with fishing or hunting. Many a Texas politico
has been caught en flagrante delecto when he combines dove
hunting with goin' to Boystown.
ObMusicalGroup: ZZTOP and their song about 'Cun~a.
Paul Ilechko
wrote:
>In way are you defining "misconduct," Ron? Impropriety,
>or wrongdoing?
"Misconduct" in Washington-speak refers to dubious behaviour by
someone whose politics you don't agree with.
***************
Paul Ilechko
http://www.transarc.com/~pilechko/homepage.htm
paschal
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, tejas wrote:
> You've never met any horny men in power, have you? Pheromones,
> pascualina,
> pheromones. Now what if Slick Willie liked young lithe men? Now there
> would
> be something to stir up that prude of prudes, Ken Starr.
> Mussolini liked to boff the help, too, and did it fully clothed as well.
> LBJ did, too, but he was a bit more circumspect and carried a bigger
> stick.
It's NOT THE SEX! It's the utterly reckless, foolish way he went about
it, and what that says about his *judgement*. And now, by refusing to
resign in a dignified way, he's compounding all the mess that his own
immaturity and lack of respect for the people and for his own position,
have created.
> And the international humiliation comes not from his flings, but from
> our outmoded, bluenosed puritanism...
If it were not for his stupidity, the world wouldn't know all of this; and
if he'd owned up to everything months ago, it would never have snowballed
into what it is now.
-P.
> ObBook: THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE by Gay Talese
David Christopher Swanson
paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> It's NOT THE SEX! It's the utterly reckless, foolish way he went about
> it, and what that says about his *judgement*. And now, by refusing to
> resign in a dignified way, he's compounding all the mess that his own
> immaturity and lack of respect for the people and for his own position,
> have created.
This is the absurd conclusion of attempts to make this crime more than
a coverup while not quite apologizing for the need he had to coverup
for something that (in DC but not some states) was not a crime.
Clinton was reckless, he recklessly risked being caught at recklessly
risking being caught recklessly risking being caught.
Perhaps someone can explain how he SHOULD have gone about it.
I happen to think it ought to be perfectly acceptable to impeach a
president for something that is not a crime, just not this something.
paschal
On 15 Sep 1998, David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.98091...@rac7.wam.umd.edu>
> paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>
> > It's NOT THE SEX! It's the utterly reckless, foolish way he went about
> > it, and what that says about his *judgement*. And now, by refusing to
> > resign in a dignified way, he's compounding all the mess that his own
> > immaturity and lack of respect for the people and for his own position,
> > have created.
>
> This is the absurd conclusion of attempts to make this crime more than
> a coverup while not quite apologizing for the need he had to coverup
> for something that (in DC but not some states) was not a crime.
> Clinton was reckless, he recklessly risked being caught at recklessly
> risking being caught recklessly risking being caught.
> Perhaps someone can explain how he SHOULD have gone about it.
From where I sit, Clinton had some pretty good chances to cut Starr off at
the pass - but, again from where I sit, his arrogance and self-absorption
(and perhaps self-delusion) made him blind to that, or led him to reject
what would have been wise. Again, it's a matter of *judgement*; and of
someone caring more about his own hide than about the country or the
Office of the President, or even the good of his political party.
> I happen to think it ought to be perfectly acceptable to impeach a
> president for something that is not a crime, just not this something.
Well, I'm still hoping he'll see the light and resign, no matter what it
costs him. It's his last chance to salvage what's left of his
presidency and his dignity, in the eyes of history - and the dignity of
the entire country is, unfortunately, inextricably bound up with that of
the President. Long after the salacious sex-stuff fades into the
background, I think people will remember the insincere grovelling and the
crazy last-ditch legal contortions. Whatever we may think of Nixon and his
character, there *was* and *remains* a great deal of dignity in the image
of him leaving the White House, on that last day. But there's no dignity
in all this snivelling and weasel-ing. It's just turning into a cheap
circus, now; because all credibility is "shot", as one politician put it.
I think it's time for a few good men to take a little walk down the Mall.
-P.
>
> DCS
> http://www.cstone.net/~dcswan
>
>
David Christopher Swanson
lying as an act of Civil Disobedience on his behalf, something the
President's unique position gives him unique strength to perform.
David Christopher Swanson
Jeffrey Davis
> It's NOT THE SEX! It's the utterly reckless, foolish way he went about
> it, and what that says about his *judgement*.
It is neither the sex nor his judgment that's at issue. If Clinton
committed perjury in one or more of his various depositions, he
committed a crime & should be impeached. If he didn't, he's simply being
smeared.[1]
In various polls that have been conducted (including the big ones in Nov
1992 and 1996) the electorate have said and continue to say they respect
his judgment (on most things) and like what he's doing (on most things)
and want him to stay.[2]
[1] There are smear aspects and typical prosecutorial over-reaching in
Starr's report regardless. Can you imagine anyone not a president being
charged w/ the vague "abuse of power" simply for conducting a vigorous
defense? Unthinkable. There are obvious political aims to Starr's
report. And Starr may simply be trying to distract the defense w/
trivialities that he knows aren't crimes. For instance, no one not a
president would be charged w/ influencing a witness for actions prior to
the time the person was in fact a subpoenaed witness. The Starr report,
since it isn't an indictment, can mix a layman's unstanding of criminal
conduct w/ legalese. Actual crimes have well defined elements that must
be proved. Starr's report doesn't have that burden & plays to the court
of public opinion. So it goes. Like I said earlier, if Clinton committed
perjury in his various depositions, he should be impeached. It's not the
sex or the judgment on trial. We're not a parliamentary democracy. Yet.
[2] Even now! Dizzying though that may be. For professional
Clinton-haters, now you know how we felt about Reagan. Some of us had to
have steam flanges inserted in our necks to keep our heads from popping
off every time Dutch was let off the hook for something egregious.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
Ron Hardin
> crazy last-ditch legal contortions. Whatever we may think of Nixon and his
> character, there *was* and *remains* a great deal of dignity in the image
> of him leaving the White House, on that last day.
There was a book by Don Novello (Father Guido Sarducci) _The Lazlo Letters_,
Workman Publishing, 1977, ISBN 0-911104-96-8, letters to famous personages
hoping to get self-important and self-serving replies, generally successfully.
There were two people that it didn't work for, for they wrote classy replies,
one to Nixon after he left the White House, and one to Nguyen Cao Ky after he
came to California. I don't know if Novello realized it.
They're not very long, here they are:
===
(Nguyen Cao Ky)
October 15, 1975
Mr. Lazlo Toth
2039 High Tower
Los Angeles, Cal. 90068
Dear Mr. Toth:
Thank you very much for your letter. I apologize for the
delay in answering, but we have been busy finding a place
to settle. We have decided to stay in the Washington area
for the time being as I feel that I can be more effective
here in helping the Vietnamese.
I am writing this note to express my gratitude for your
kind words and good wishes. Also, I would like very much
to thank you for the dollar you sent so that I could get
a hamburger at MacDonalds.
I would like to report to you that a National Center for
Vietnamese Resettlement has been formed in Washington
to assist in the long term needs of the refugees. I know
that we can count on your support of the Center.
Your feelings toward the refugees from Vietnam are heartwarming
and constitute a great source of encouragement to me.
For this and your other kindnesses, I send you my
grateful thanks. Best personal wishes to you.
Yours sincerely,
Nguyen Cao Ky
===
(Richard M. Nixon)
November 7, 1975
Dear Mr. Toth:
A friendly letter in the mailbag is
always most welcome, and that certainly
was the case with yours of October 23rd.
It was thoughtful of you to take the time
to write as you did, and I wanted you to
know of my appreciation.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Richard Nixon
P.S. King Timahoe is with us and in the best
of health; Vicki has been in the family since
1962 and is amazingly active and well for her
years.
Ted Samsel
: "Dylan and Kamala" <Dy...@slip.net> wrote:
: >Your argument would be a lot more convincing were it not for the fact that,
: >of the four major political figures who've been attacked for their sex lives
: >in the past decade or so (I'm thinking of Hart, Packwood, Thomas, and
: >Clinton), three have been Democrats, and the single Republican was
: >eventually vindicated and enjoys a successful career on the supreme court
: >today, whereas the careers of two of the Democrats were ruined, and the
: >third's fate remains up in the air. It really surprises me that you should
: >have such party-specific blinders on--I didn't think that was one of your
: >weaknesses.
: Packwood is a Democrat? When did that happen?
Maybe he had an operation?
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net (or tbsa...@richmond.infi.net)
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Ron Hardin
> : Packwood is a Democrat? When did that happen?
>
> Maybe he had an operation?
The top tube on his mountain bike got him.
I hope nobody is overlooking the flood of good lines
in the media. Somebody on Imus wrote in to MSNBC
that he found himself getting hot reading the Starr
report and wondered if the was turning into a Republican.
Ted Samsel
: David Christopher Swanson (dcs...@cstone.net) wrote:
: [...]
: : Perhaps someone can explain how he SHOULD have gone about it.
: "Ladies and Gentlemen, my sexual life is none of your business and I
: respectfully decline to answer any questions pertaining to it."
Naw!
Do the Davy Crockett/Munchenhausen boasting/toasting full of
braggadocio in the vein of:
"I'm from Arkansas and I'm half-horse, half-alligator and can go
through a secretarial pool like Secretariat. I drink nitromethane
from a fruit jar and can eat my weight in Cheezy Poofs. Where's
the beer and when do I get paid? I've got enough hair on my ass
to recarpet the entire J Edgar Hoover Office building in ScotchGarded
Karastan."
Now that's lying. Not this semantic wibble-wobble.
Fiona Webster
> Well, I'm still hoping he'll see the light and resign, no matter what it
> costs him. It's his last chance to salvage what's left of his
> presidency and his dignity, in the eyes of history - and the dignity of
> the entire country is, unfortunately, inextricably bound up with that of
> the President. Long after the salacious sex-stuff fades into the
> background, I think people will remember the insincere grovelling and the
> character, there *was* and *remains* a great deal of dignity in the image
> in all this snivelling and weasel-ing. It's just turning into a cheap
> circus, now; because all credibility is "shot", as one politician put it.
>
> I think it's time for a few good men to take a little walk down the Mall.
paschal and William J. Bennett: separated at birth?
Ob Books: Bennett's of course, the very titles of which make me gag:
--The De-Valuing of America : The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children
--The Book of Virtues : A Treasury of Great Moral Stories
--The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals
--now where did I stash those Compazine suppositories?
Fiona
Fiona Webster
> [2] Even now! Dizzying though that may be. For professional
> Clinton-haters, now you know how we felt about Reagan. Some of us had to
> have steam flanges inserted in our necks to keep our heads from popping
> off every time Dutch was let off the hook for something egregious.
I have a coffee mug from the Dutch Period that has "January 20, 1989" on
it, the words "Ron's Last Day!", and a picture of hundreds of people
cheering and smiling. Drinking my daily coffee out of that mug helped
hold me back from despair through the latter part of '88.
Ob Book: The Paranoid Style in American Politics, by Richard Hofstadter
--Fiona
Joan Marie Shields
> I read the whole thing. It IS all about sex.
> And covering up sex. And lying about sex. As
> if no one has ever done *that* before.
Michael S. Morris <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:
>Which is the Brave, New World the feminists
>have given us with their sexual harassment
>law.
Have you ever been sexually harrassed, Mike? Have you ever had
your professional or acedemic career depending on whether or not
you have sex with someone? Have you ever complained on being
sexually harrassed only to have some idiot say, "What? You didn't
get paid enough?" Have you ever been in a professional situation
where your qualifications were considered far below your cup size
and the shapeliness of your legs - as well as your "accomdating
attitude?"
I remember when the college I was going to instituted a sexual
harrassment policy. Too bad the worse offender was never prosecuted.
He managed to scare the women too much for them to say anything.
>Mike Morris gets sued for sexual
>harassment, gets asked about his sexual history
>on a fishing expedition by the plaintiff's lawyers,
>and denies there under oath something that he did
>in fact do, and he goes to jail on perjury. He's a
>businessman, after all. Of questionably Republican
>proclivities, don't you know.
This I would not support but I can understand why this would make
you uncomfortable. It wasn't all that long ago that a rape victim
would have to endure these kinds of questions - no matter how brutal
the rape. I remember a rape case, 15 or 20 years ago, where a these
kinds of questions put to a victim were publicised. I was also living
in North Carolina when the marital rape law was being debated. How
many state congressmen were upset about this. Not to mention the
arguements against raising the age of consent for women from 13 to 16.
>Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a Democrat.
>His lying under oath is a mere peccadillo, which
>we should all be big enough to *forgive* him for,
>since it was only about sex, and since he's asked
>us for our forgiveness.
I do not condone what he did - however, I do find it odd that there
seems to be more of an outrage and call for impeachment for this than
there seemed to be for Iran-Contra. Reagan said he did not recall and
that seems to have been enough. All those convicted were pardoned -
that act was seen as ok, not improper at all. Subverting the
Constitution is ok - lying about sex isn't (especially if you get caught).
Of course, I have to take a long look at myself here - would I want to
put in a deposition all the mistakes I have made in regards to sex? No,
I wouldn't. I think that most of us could say that.
>I think the foreign editorialists you quote
>*do not* understand what it is they are talking
>about. I think they have a prejudice about America
>being a place which is prudish (contrast implied
>to European sophistication) about sex, and they
>are just writing out of that.
This could be the case - then again, it's very much a matter of
perspective. To many Europeans Americans have a very odd view of
sex. We are a very prudish country and yet we use sex as a means
of selling everything from cars to vitamins. We condem pornography
but it's a billion dollar business here.
yours in wet fishes and we spent $40 million dollars for that report
and 50 people in Utah have been diagnosed with whooping cough, including
a infants and children (who can easily die or suffer brian damage)
- with vaccination, an easily preventable disease, Utah, being second
only to last place Idaho for childhood immunization rates,
joan
--
Joan Shields jshi...@uci.edu http://www.ags.uci.edu/~jshields
University of California - Irvine School of Social Ecology
Department of Environmental Analysis and Design
I do not purchase services or products from unsolicited e-mail advertisements.
David Christopher Swanson
sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
> David Christopher Swanson (dcs...@cstone.net) wrote:
> [...]
>
> : Perhaps someone can explain how he SHOULD have gone about it.
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, my sexual life is none of your business and I
> respectfully decline to answer any questions pertaining to it."
>
> smw
Both Pascal and Silke have understood me as asking how he should have
gone about the coverup, which is appropriate, I guess, in a criminal
case involving nothing other than a coverup. But I was asking how he
could have had his fling (and the question does not imply that he
should have had it at all) unrecklessly.
Pascal's response was to refer to some unspecified chances Clinton blew
to better succeed in his coverup. My impression is that Pascal is
bluffing and is motivated most probably by the YUCK factor.
I like Silke's response. But Clinton could have been charged with a
crime for going that way as well. And he is an American politician,
therefore well-aware and by this point blindly accepting of the fact
that America elects largely on the basis of religion, sex-life, looks,
and personality. Clinton may not only - as many commentators have
suggested - gotten a thrill out of taking a risk, but he may have
suspected (as I suspect) that his bimbo eruptions helped, rather than
hurt, his past election successes over scrawny elderly compassionless
wimps and mangled war vets. Also, as an American politician, his
initial response is always to lie.
The view in this thread that what counts is perjury is what will
condemn our country before the world as something worse than a bunch of
puritans: we will be a bunch of lawyers. If we are going to throw him
out for lying, let's begin with his earliest lie to Haitian immigrants,
and compile a catalog. Throwing him out for the one under
consideration, and not others, is what I will be most ashamed of.
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>yours in wet fishes and we spent $40 million dollars for that report
>and 50 people in Utah have been diagnosed with whooping cough, including
>a infants and children (who can easily die or suffer brian damage)
>- with vaccination, an easily preventable disease, Utah, being second
>only to last place Idaho for childhood immunization rates,
>
There was a report in the NY Times a couple of days ago which said
that the amount of money that is spent annually on cosmetics in
the USA or on icecream in Europe (something of the order of $9
billion, if I remember correctly), would have been sufficient
to provide health care and immunization to all children in the
third world.
ObBook: HOW THE OTHER HALF DIES : THE REAL REASONS FOR WORLD HUNGER
by Susan George (1976).
don_...@kvo.com
"Dylan and Kamala" <Dy...@slip.net> wrote:
> Your argument would be a lot more convincing were it not for the fact that,
> of the four major political figures who've been attacked for their sex lives
> in the past decade or so (I'm thinking of Hart, Packwood, Thomas, and
> Clinton), three have been Democrats, and the single Republican was
> eventually vindicated and enjoys a successful career on the supreme court
> today.
Mmm. Post in haste. . . . Packwood is/was a Republican.
But Oregon is a peculiar state. Wayne Morse, who literally crossed the
Senate aisle over Vietnam, is the quintessential example. Packwood was as
far to the left as most middle-of-the-road Democrats, and had an impeccable
voting record on Womens' issues. He had quaint notions about the privacy of
diaries, though. I'm still not sure whether the Womens' Lobby got him, as the
sheep keep chanting, or whether he was set up by the right wing of his party.
Don
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
sayan bhattacharyya
>seems to be more of an outrage and call for impeachment for this than
>there seemed to be for Iran-Contra. Reagan said he did not recall and
>that seems to have been enough. All those convicted were pardoned -
>that act was seen as ok, not improper at all. Subverting the
>Constitution is ok - lying about sex isn't (especially if you get caught).
>
You just don't get it, Joan. Reagan was fighting the
bad guys (the Sandinistas). It was all in a good cause. The end
justifies the means -- when the end is to keep the world safe for
democracy, how does it matter if a few laws are flouted? All is
forgiven if your heart's in the right place.
ObMovie: "Hombres Armados" ("Men With Guns") by John Sayles
don_...@kvo.com
jshi...@taurus.oac.uci.edu (Joan Marie Shields ) wrote:
> yours in wet fishes and we spent $40 million dollars for that report
> and 50 people in Utah have been diagnosed with whooping cough, including
> a infants and children (who can easily die or suffer brian damage)
> - with vaccination, an easily preventable disease, Utah, being second
> only to last place Idaho for childhood immunization rates,
>
> joan
Take that one to misc.kids. There's a strong underground movement
encouraging new parents to omit pertussis from the standard
diptheria-pertussis-typhus vaccination. The argument is that a few kids die
from the shots every year, and if one of them could be mine, to hell with
Public Health.
Don (Ok, the argument is cuter than that. It's along the lines: parents
should be able to make informed choices, and we think the drug companies and
doctors have been hiding the fact that there is a finite mortality rate
associated with pertussis vaccinations, so we're setting the record straight.
And to hell with Public Health.)
I worry more about Reys' syndrome myself.
paschal
On 15 Sep 1998, David Christopher Swanson wrote:
> In article <zPuL1.2936$F7.11...@news.itd.umich.edu>
> sm...@umich.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>
> > David Christopher Swanson (dcs...@cstone.net) wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > : Perhaps someone can explain how he SHOULD have gone about it.
> >
> > "Ladies and Gentlemen, my sexual life is none of your business and I
> > respectfully decline to answer any questions pertaining to it."
> >
> > smw
>
> Both Pascal and Silke have understood me as asking how he should have
> gone about the coverup, which is appropriate, I guess, in a criminal
> case involving nothing other than a coverup. But I was asking how he
> could have had his fling (and the question does not imply that he
> should have had it at all) unrecklessly.
>
> Pascal's response was to refer to some unspecified chances Clinton blew
> to better succeed in his coverup. My impression is that Pascal is
> bluffing and is motivated most probably by the YUCK factor.
No; I was suggesting that seven or eight months ago, the prez could have
just said, yes, I did this with "that woman" - *instead* of trying to
cover it up for so long. The report we have (so far) from Starr, deals
with Lewinsky and her affair with the president. The president could have
short-circuited it, or at least diluted its effect an awful lot, if he'd
just told the truth about the sex. People can forgive a lot of things, if
they get the feeling that the perpetrator is honest and sincere.
Unfortuantely, at this point, few people think of WJC as "honest and
sincere," if they ever did.
Remember that the Constitution IS vague on impeachment; and many people
lately have noted that impeachment is a political process, not a legal
one. A whole lot of things could possibly be construed as misdemeanors
that undermine the Constitution - depending on the times, the atmosphere,
and circumstances; it doesn't always have to be an actual crime. And
sometimes a crime itself, depending on what it is, may not be seen as a
reason for impeachment.
My point is that Clinton did himself much more damage by lying to the
PEOPLE, and dragging us all through these last months, than he may have
done by lying under oath, either in the Jones case, or on Aug. 17. While
he has juggled legalisms and split hairs and concentrated on
technicalities trying to dodge things, he has failed to see that it's his
*character* - or lack of it - that has really caused all this trouble, and
may do him in.
I like Mike's idea - he should have said, it's none of your business; and
then let the chips fall where they would. Considering the position he was
in by the time he might have done that, he'd still have had to resign or
been impeached - but, again, it was his own character that got him into
that position to start with. Character, *again*. It does matter. But if
he'd done it Mike's way, he'd have exited with an awful lot more respect;
he would have looked like a man - or at least perhaps finally have become
one.
-P.
ther...@vegtabl.com
>Your argument would be a lot more convincing were it not for the fact that,
>of the four major political figures who've been attacked for their sex lives
>in the past decade or so (I'm thinking of Hart, Packwood, Thomas, and
>Clinton), three have been Democrats, and the single Republican was
>eventually vindicated and enjoys a successful career on the supreme court
!!!!
This will be news to Mr. Packwood! Wow! Was he single? Yeah, I
seem to recall his wife divirced him. Whatever, I'm totally boggled.
veg
o: _Judge On Trial_ Ivan Klima, great novel, apropos title, no connection.
or: maybe you mean Packwood was a dem at one time? ("three have been")
I don't think that's the case. He started out by taking out his
mentor, Wayne Morse.
Fiona Webster
> I think the foreign editorialists you quote
> *do not* understand what it is they are talking
> about. I think they have a prejudice about America
> being a place which is prudish (contrast implied
> to European sophistication) about sex, and they
> are just writing out of that.
The US *is* prudish about sex. The same TV networks that won't
show a single nipple or bare butt, that edit the lyric about how
"heavy petting leads to seat wetting" out of a song in "Rocky
Horror Picture Show," *do* show brutal, bloody deaths during
prime time.
--Fiona
David J. Loftus
: *didn't* perjure himself, a case can very well be made, I think, for the
: fact that he has acted recklessly and irresponsibly, in a way that could
: have set him up for blackmail, and endangered the whole country. As
: someone else on USENET has asked, what if Lewinsky had been a foreign
: agent?
There's that, but even worse, once she started funneling gifts to him
through Betty Currie, the President's secretary eventually funneled the
packages on through to him without examining them. If someone had
managed to find out about the arrangement, he or she could easily have
sent in a package that appeared to be from Ms. Lewinsky but actually
contained a bomb.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: Paschal writes:
: How about perjury? How would you like
: to be in the position of someone who has
: been wronged; and go into court, seeking
: redress; and then find that people can lie
: under oath and get away with it?
: Careful. I didn't say he didn't deserve to be
: removed from office. I very much think he does,
: as I understand perjury, and how it is he plainly
: lied under oath. If it turns out I am wrong about
: this---that I could be caught in a lie like that
: and would not be convicted of a crime because of it---
: then I would be willing to extend to Clinton the
: same consideration.
From what I hear, the sort of perjury involved here is the kind that is
rarely if ever prosecuted among us normal folks out here. That is to
say, perjury in a civil proceeding (as opposed to a criminal one), on a
matter that is not material to the facts of the case (i.e., whether or
not Clinton lied about sex with Ms. Lewinsky is not going to prove one
way or the other whether he harassed Ms. Jones sexually).
If Clinton is brought down for his perjury in this instance, then he is
not being treated in the same manner as the vast majority of other
Americans, but being singled out for prosecution.
Now, whether we SHOULD hold the President to a higher standard than we do
other Americans is another matter. All I'm saying is that apparently
people are urging he be singled out when they think -- or pretend to
think -- they want him punished equitably.
: I agree. However, prior to his lying under oath
: about it, I don't see that any of this recklessness
: constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanour". It
: just means we made a bad choice for prez (heck,
: I don't even believe this, sicne I think both Bush
: and Dole were worse choices). It means we ought to
: pick somebody different next time.
Amen. I take some small consolation in the fact that, in spirit, I never
voted for Clinton. I voted AGAINST Bush in 1992, and I voted for the
Socialist candidate in 1996.
: As for our country's security, it bothers me
: a heckuva lot more that Clinton seems to spend
: half of his time fundraising for political campaigns.
It pisses me off that so many Americans think getting a blowjob on the
job and lying about it should merit impeachment while ordering activities
on the far side of the globe or the southern hemisphere which result in
the deaths of human beings -- as just about every president in my
lifetime except perhaps for Ford and Carter has done -- hardly bothers
anyone.
I still vividly recall watching the House Judiciary Committee hearings on
Nixon's impeachment in 1974 and how hard Father Robert Drinan labored to
get the secret bombing of Cambodia listed as an impeachable offense
alongside domestic burglaries and buggings. I can't even remember now
whether he was successful, but the point is that too many Americans seem
to think domestic misbehavior and possible felonies are more heinous than
taking human lives abroad.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
: It's NOT THE SEX! It's the utterly reckless, foolish way he went about
: it, and what that says about his *judgement*. And now, by refusing to
: resign in a dignified way, he's compounding all the mess that his own
: immaturity and lack of respect for the people and for his own position,
: have created.
Do you seriously think Clinton would conduct his foreign policy and
domestic economic policy in the same utterly reckless, foolish way?
People apply different levels of judgment in different ways.
From what I hear, many European newspapers, never mind European citizens,
find this whole brouhaha laughable. I didn't catch the source -- I
suspect it was an Italian paper -- but I heard someone read an editorial
from overseas on NPR yesterday afternoon that said most folks locally
would consider it an impeachable offense, an insult to one's honor, if a
powerful man DIDN'T unzip his pants when a young woman gave him the green
light. They were joking, of course, but it does convey a somewhat
different perspective on the supposed gravity of the situation.
David Loftus
Ron Hardin
> The US *is* prudish about sex. The same TV networks that won't
> show a single nipple or bare butt, that edit the lyric about how
> "heavy petting leads to seat wetting" out of a song in "Rocky
> Horror Picture Show," *do* show brutal, bloody deaths during
> prime time.
The sort of people you'd want to offend are offended, perhaps
is the way to put it. It's like flag burning.
A lot of humor depends on offense, and it's to
preserve that that the FCC is acting.
David J. Loftus
: But I'll tell you this: if he remains in office, on principle I will
: never vote for a Democrat again; because it seems to me that the Dems
: have the greatest responsiblity of anyone, to dump him.
That's quite a threat, especially if you live in the District of
Columbia, where your congressional representatives don't have any voting
rights anyway.
Fortunately, the many fine Democrats out there, from the governor of my
state to Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Barney
Frank of Massachusetts, don't have to worry about losing your vote.
David Loftus
Michael Zensius
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.98091...@rac7.wam.umd.edu>
>paschal <pas...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
>> It's NOT THE SEX! It's the utterly reckless, foolish way he went about
>> it, and what that says about his *judgement*. And now, by refusing to
>> resign in a dignified way, he's compounding all the mess that his own
>> immaturity and lack of respect for the people and for his own position,
>> have created.
>This is the absurd conclusion of attempts to make this crime more than
>a coverup while not quite apologizing for the need he had to coverup
>for something that (in DC but not some states) was not a crime.
>Clinton was reckless, he recklessly risked being caught at recklessly
>risking being caught recklessly risking being caught.
>Perhaps someone can explain how he SHOULD have gone about it.
Wow.
He shouldn't have gone about it at all, you see.
Isn't that the point?
>I happen to think it ought to be perfectly acceptable to impeach a
>president for something that is not a crime, just not this something.
Fair enough, as a hypothetical, but there are crimes alleged here, if
only perjury.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Guidance is internal"
-Mission Control, just before takeoff of Apollo 11
_______________________Michael_Zensius________________________
mzen...@netcom.com
paschal
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Fiona Webster wrote:
> paschal and William J. Bennett: separated at birth?
>
> Ob Books: Bennett's of course, the very titles of which make me gag:
> --The De-Valuing of America : The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children
> --The Book of Virtues : A Treasury of Great Moral Stories
> --The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals
I haven't read any of his books, but when I've seen him on tv, he's seemed
very intelligent and principled to me.
I still have a lot of thoughts about this, but I don't have the time to
compose them properly - and I'm bored with it all now, anyway. I want to
start a quilt today, and "hibernate" until we have a new president.
But perhaps this *could* have been the solution to all of WJC's woes:
A long, long time ago, maybe he should have made a decision as to which
of two things he really wanted: to be President of the U.S., or to be
able to indulge himself in any way he wanted, anywhere, anytime. He's
still relatively young, and if he wants to, when he leaves office,
he can go out and be as profligate as he wants to be for the rest of his
life. He'll still suffer consequences, but at least the whole country
won't have to suffer them with him.
And perhaps a surefire way for the country to avoid this kind of mess in
the future, would be to quit turning a blind-eye to the issue of
character, when we vote.
-P.
sayan bhattacharyya
>I can't even remember now
>whether he was successful, but the point is that too many Americans seem
>to think domestic misbehavior and possible felonies are more heinous than
>taking human lives abroad.
Of course domestic misbehavior is more heinous. Human life is cheap
in the third world. An average person in my country makes, say, 90 times
less than an average person in the West. This means, for example, that my
life is 90 times cheaper than your life. It's a matter of simple common
sense. What are you, some kind of woolly liberal?
For precisely this reason, one of the high-ranking people at the
World bank suggested some time ago that polluting industries should be
relocated to the third world as much as possible. Human life is cheap
there, so if there are, say, 10,000 deaths due to pollution, the "cost"
of it is less than the corresponding cost would have been in the
West.
For precisely the same reasons, we third-worlders are so eager
to have your toxic waste shipped to us, too.
Robert Teeter
: I like Silke's response. But Clinton could have been charged with a
: crime for going that way as well. And he is an American politician,
: therefore well-aware and by this point blindly accepting of the fact
: that America elects largely on the basis of religion, sex-life, looks,
: and personality. Clinton may not only - as many commentators have
: suggested - gotten a thrill out of taking a risk, but he may have
: suspected (as I suspect) that his bimbo eruptions helped, rather than
: hurt, his past election successes over scrawny elderly compassionless
: wimps and mangled war vets. Also, as an American politician, his
: initial response is always to lie.
Why, oh why, didn't he just take the Fifth? Sure, most Americans
would have taken that as an admission of guilt, but who really thought
he was innocent back in January? There wouldn't have been any charges
of perjury, "obstruction of justice," "abuse of power."
--
Bob Teeter (rte...@netcom.com) | http://www.wco.com/~rteeter/
"Like all those possessing a library, Aurelian was aware that he
was guilty of not knowing his in its entirety."
-- Borges, "The Theologians"
Matthew P Wiener
>paschal wrote:
>> crazy last-ditch legal contortions. Whatever we may think of Nixon and his
>> character, there *was* and *remains* a great deal of dignity in the image
>> of him leaving the White House, on that last day.
>There was a book by Don Novello (Father Guido Sarducci) _The Lazlo Letters_,
>Workman Publishing, 1977, ISBN 0-911104-96-8, letters to famous personages
>hoping to get self-important and self-serving replies, generally successfully.
The letters were also deliberately on the loony side. What we now call
trolls. He also went after corporations. His letter to Hershey, waxing
horrific over a deformed M&M (which he enclosed) and what it means about
declining American standards, is an utter gas. He received replacements,
and a sincere apology.
And to JPL regarding the Viking landings, he offered the slogan "A small
scoop for a machine, a giant scoop for mankind!" And his question about
how much it would cost to drive to Mars, at $.53 a gallon (regular, self
serve) was answered. More than answered: "At 55 mph, it would take about
8 million hours. That's about 10 centuries -- sounds like a good trip.
Bon Voyage."
>There were two people that it didn't work for, for they wrote classy
>replies, one to Nixon after he left the White House, and one to
>Nguyen Cao Ky after he came to California. I don't know if Novello
>realized it.
There were numerous classy replies.
Also see CITIZEN LAZLO! The Lazlo Letters vol 2 (Workman, 1992).
One weird reply from Kellogg's Consumer Service Department: "By the way,
I didn't use a Pentel for making the circles. It was an Eagle Flash II
or a Flash 30 and a Major Accent 49. I never liked Pentels. Mention one
in a conversation and people think you have a speech impediment."
And see the Lazlo letter where he included 5 dollars to Nixon to get
tickets for the San Clemente tour (preferably up front, so Lazlo can
talk to the driver). A year later, Lazlo wrote again, asking for the
5 dollars back, since he's had hard times. It came back, with an extra
quarter taped on. The only words are "as requested" and "Interest".
I suspect Novello knew his Lazlo was not always being treated on the
level. I don't think he minded.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Robert Teeter
: Remember that the Constitution IS vague on impeachment; and many people
: lately have noted that impeachment is a political process, not a legal
: one. A whole lot of things could possibly be construed as misdemeanors
: that undermine the Constitution ...
No, absolutely not. "Misdemeanor" is a legal term, and the
lawyers who wrote the Constitution would have understood it as such. The
Constitution specifies "high crimes and misdemeanors" and names two in
particular -- bribery and treason. It's clear that they meant serious
*crimes*, not lying, not character flaws.
Jeffrey Davis
> No, absolutely not. "Misdemeanor" is a legal term, and the
> lawyers who wrote the Constitution would have understood it as such.
It's a legal term but a pretty vague one. The Congress that impeached
Andrew Johnson did so for firing one of his cabinet.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> Lots Available
tejas
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Fiona Webster wrote:
>
> > paschal and William J. Bennett: separated at birth?
> >
> > Ob Books: Bennett's of course, the very titles of which make me gag:
> > --The De-Valuing of America : The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children
> > --The Book of Virtues : A Treasury of Great Moral Stories
> > --The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals
>
> I haven't read any of his books, but when I've seen him on tv, he's seemed
> very intelligent and principled to me.
Yeah, back when we were in college, he'd go into bars and holler
(being a philosophy major), "I can out-think any SOB in this bar!"
Just another peckerhead.
Perhaps like young Swansong.
--
TBSa...@richmond.infi.net (also te...@infi.net)
'Do the boogie woogie in the South American way'
Hank Snow THE RHUMBA BOOGIE