David Way ([email protected])
Wed, 23 Dec 1998 20:20:21 PST
Well, Matt McGee has got to believe that I just search for his posts
and then rebel against them. :) I assure you that this is merely a
coincidence and that we surely must completely agree about some things
(otherwise we both wouldn't be U2 fans).
No, I'm responding to the other Matt (Crawford, that is). First, I
must say that many points of his post, and those later supporting his
original post, have merit. However, IMHO, they are not complete.
(Otherwise, I wouldn't be posting, would I? ;) Someone else wrote that
they are tired of all the off-topic posts, but I think what is really
meant is that they are tired of off-topic posts that they are ambivalent
about or disagree with. If you come across such posts, the scroll-bar is
on the right if you don't want to read them. I love the fact that so
many people who are unified by their admiration of a particular group
can be so different philosophically/religiously/politically. Anyone who
doesn't want anyone else to post opinions different from theirs is
unfairly acting as an unofficial censor.
Let me start by responding to the objection that those who hold up
Bono and his views in high esteem cannot/do not think and formulate
opinions for themselves. This is patent nonsense. The reason Timothy
McIntyre posted this article to Wire is that he has thought out the
issues and agrees with Bono. He gave his own opinions by quoting Bono,
who just happened to crystallize what people like about Bill Clinton in
a relatively brief "Rolling Stone" interview. The reason he bothered to
quote Bono in full on Wire is because, lo and behold, Bono's the singer
of U2 and this is a U2 mailing list. In other words, this article has
every reason to appear in Wire. Insinuations that this kind of post
doesn't belong here is, frankly, insulting. (Side note: I am deriving an
almost voyeristic pleasure over watching fans of U2 who are conservative
philosophically wrestling with the fact that our group clearly is not. I
also like the "sour grapes" being offered in their posts that the
opinions of foreign rock stars are irrelevant. If you really believe
that, why are you even bothering to post about the issue? Moreover, if
U2 did preach conservative politics, are you sure you wouldn't hold them
up as paragons of phliosophical virtue? I'm willing to bet you would!)
The opinions of those residing outside the USA regarding Bill
Clinton are actually two-fold: less relevant and more relevant. The
former is true because they are not citizens of this country and, thus,
cannot vote. The latter is true because they haven't been propagandized
one way or the other by our media. (The term "objective media" is a
paradox.) Bono has met Clinton only a handful of times; however, none of
those times were mere "photo-ops". They met for several hours every
time. They did get to engage in meaningful dialogue which extended
beyond the politics of one nation or another. Thus, Bono from personal
experience has an informed opinion about Clinton, an opinion superior to
those of many Wire readers because they have never met the man. Bono
said in the article, "And the key to his appeal: humanness." I have to
agree: whether or not you agree with him politically, his heart is in
the right place, more so than any of his political opponents for the
past 6 years in my opinion. (His penis is very often in the wrong place,
but he is reaping his karma for that, isn't he? ;)
Let me quote the article further: "The President's actions in Bosnia
showed up Europe's moral and bureaucratic morass. Here in Ireland, there
wouldn't be a Good Friday peace agreement without him." Mr. Trimble, Mr.
Hume (the two Nobel Peace prize winners for this agreeement), and even
Mr. Adams of the IRA have fully acknowledged the truth of Bono's
statement that Clinton was essential for the drafting and approval of
that agreement. Let me quote further: "...in the media, an insatiable
desire for sex that mocks their own criticism of the President's. To the
rest of the world, America looked like a teenager in a masturbatory
frenzy of voyerism and Schadenfreude: ratings vs. decency, a salem witch
hunt for evidence vs. the human right to privacy, even in the wrong."
It's that last point I want to expand upon.
People constantly bring up that sex was not the issue. The issue was
that he lied under oath and perhaps coerced others to do the same. I
believe both of these issues are true and he was justly impeached for
them. This will forever be a stain on his record and he deserves it. The
House of Representatives performed its Constitutional duty. However,
let's look at the bigger picture. Why did Clinton lie? He lied because
of the feeding frenzy regarding the nature of his private life. The fact
of the matter is if he hadn't been harrassed from all sides about his
private life, he wouldn't have felt compelled to lie. Now, one might
argue that Clinton caused his own problems by being a libertine; that is
certainly true. However, if you were under the scrutiny of your enemies
who have almost unlimited financial resources for an extended period of
time, don't you think that they might find something about you that you
wouldn't want known? Don't you think you might even lie about it because
you think you were being unfairly pursued? (I might, I might not; I
don't know - I further hope that I never have to face the witch-hunt
that he has.)
The reason that Clinton's job approval ratings have soared to an
all-time high (even higher than Reagan's highest) is that the public is
savvy enough to know that the punishment has to fit the crime and that
his enemies are out to ruin him regardless of the cost. Impeachment fits
his offenses; removal from office due to a conviction from the Senate
would not. "But he lied under oath", I hear you complain. True, but he
lied under oath about an affair. Lying about adultery is as old
as...well...adultery. I don't condone either, but it also doesn't
warrant removal from office in my opinion. Let's compare this "lie under
oath" with another during the '80's: Oliver North's. His duplicitous
actions (with the tacit or explicit aproval of Reagan and/or Bush -
we'll never know for sure) led to the deaths of countless thousands in
Central America. Clinton's duplicitous actions killed no one (and think
how good Monica must have felt - no, no, forget I said that ;).
That's why the public as a whole is not outraged by Clinton's
actions. He lied about personal failings, not political ones. I am
further amazed and amused by the Republican Party's posturing as the
"Morality Party" - a quality neither party has in abundance. The party
that brought us Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal, both of which, in
my opinion, were "impeachment-worthy", posing as the defenders of moral
and political rectitude - what a crock of shit! That is really the
problem here: the reason there isn't a lot of moral indignation against
the president is that his accusers are pretentious, priggish,
sanctimonious hypocrites and the public is fully aware of it! I, and
many others who agree with me about this whole issue, will NOT have this
motley crew dictate morality and ethicity to me or the public at large:
they are not worthy, period.
One other point before I go. The margin of victory in the '92 and
'96 elections was brought up again as a point against Clinton's
legitimate claim to the presidency. Anyone with any intelligence knows
that the reason he didn't receive 50% of the popular vote (although he
was a fraction of a point away in '96) was Ross Perot's Reform Party
presence in both elections. Without his interference, Clinton easily
would have broken the 50% level both times. Nice try; however, we all
aren't easily fooled.
David Way
P.S. It was also written: "The public, in general, does not know all
the facts, and a decision should be based on the facts..." Hmm...I guess
that includes me. However, it also includes the author, doesn't it? ;)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Dec 23 1998 - 20:22:02 PST