I posted some weeks ago that the president of the United States was in violation of the law. A 1973 statute allows the president, in his capacity as CIC, to commit combat forces for up to 90 days at his discretion, thereafter needing explicit authorization from congress. We are approaching 120 days in Libya. Speaker Boehner is threatening to cut off funding.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
Does anyone get the fact that there's more at stake here than funding? The PoTUS actually defended his actions by saying the bombing runs targeting Libyan regulars quote, " does not constitute hostilities." And Harry Reid announced that there's no need to seek congressional authorization because, "This will be over before we know it." Lets set aside the fact that Reid has the IQ of a warm salad, because it has now broke that both Obama's pentagon and Department of Justice advised him he must seek congressional approval to go past the 90 days.
Look, you only have to cross the Rubicon once to fundamentally change your government, forever. If the president is allowed unconditional control of our armed forces with no declaration of war or congressional authority of any kind then what is to stop him from entering us into another Vietnam ... from violating posse comitatus?
Where are you civil libertarians that protested LBJ on the Left? And to the GOP, especially the 90's holdovers, is such a violation not at least AS impeachable as lying about a stained dress? Grow a set already ... this is bigger than you.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Graduate...
Today, our Katey graduates high school.
With all the preperations for the gathering and as much work as had to be done yesterday, I haven't thought much about the actual fact of her graduation. This morning, though, I have thought about it.
I met her when she was 11 years old, and she has done a lot of growing up since then. She's a little, tiny thing even now... but inside that petite little shape is a tough cookie. She made some plans with her friends yesterday that weren't shared with us, and some confusion resulted right in the middle of several rather large projects. Tempers on both sides got a little hot, but when I had a chance to talk to her, we seemed to have gotten things straightened out to everyone's satisfaction. She got back to the house safe and sound (with her brother in tow) well before the 3AM cerfew we had set.
I'm very proud of you, Katey Jean... very proud indeed. I love you very much, and I am sure you'll have all the luck and fun you can handle in the months ahead.
With all the preperations for the gathering and as much work as had to be done yesterday, I haven't thought much about the actual fact of her graduation. This morning, though, I have thought about it.
I met her when she was 11 years old, and she has done a lot of growing up since then. She's a little, tiny thing even now... but inside that petite little shape is a tough cookie. She made some plans with her friends yesterday that weren't shared with us, and some confusion resulted right in the middle of several rather large projects. Tempers on both sides got a little hot, but when I had a chance to talk to her, we seemed to have gotten things straightened out to everyone's satisfaction. She got back to the house safe and sound (with her brother in tow) well before the 3AM cerfew we had set.
I'm very proud of you, Katey Jean... very proud indeed. I love you very much, and I am sure you'll have all the luck and fun you can handle in the months ahead.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
In-laws and days off...
My mother-in-law and my wife's sister arrived here last night... to my Bund buddies, its Sylvia and Jaquie (famously recalled from their last visit to my humble home). One car, and most of that filled with wine, beer and booze (Jaquie's, not Sylvia's).
I'm now off until Monday, but it is a busy weekend. Party preperations galore as we approach the graduation of our oldest. I've a pool to finish preping, wood for a bonfire to pick up, shopping to do, lawn care to complete, a HUGE tent to get set up... the usual stuff here at the homestead.
I'll post when I can...
I'm now off until Monday, but it is a busy weekend. Party preperations galore as we approach the graduation of our oldest. I've a pool to finish preping, wood for a bonfire to pick up, shopping to do, lawn care to complete, a HUGE tent to get set up... the usual stuff here at the homestead.
I'll post when I can...
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
6%
Just quickly...
The PoTUS is taking heat for an off the cuff comment he made. Speaking about the economy in general and the latest rise in unemployment in specific, he quipped: "The shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we expected."
So, what percentage of the 830 billion of our stimulus dollars went to projects that actually employed people? See post title.
The PoTUS is taking heat for an off the cuff comment he made. Speaking about the economy in general and the latest rise in unemployment in specific, he quipped: "The shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as we expected."
So, what percentage of the 830 billion of our stimulus dollars went to projects that actually employed people? See post title.
Too True...
Yes, my math was bad. I have spent entirely too much time in poker lately, I guess. Not sure I'd know a horn high yo from a skinny doogan at this point in my career... but I know what to do when a dealer prematures the river card before action is complete on a 5-10 no limit hold'em game.
Still you'd think 111 minus 77 would equal the same regardless of which pit's calculator you were using, wouldn't you? Hehe... Damn pit clerks and their sheenanigans!
Still you'd think 111 minus 77 would equal the same regardless of which pit's calculator you were using, wouldn't you? Hehe... Damn pit clerks and their sheenanigans!
I don't know how they do things in the poker room...
But out here in the dice pit, where Jambo and I make our living, it's 34.
"but because of his mistake in 1977 (fourty three years earlier, mind you... in case your math is bad), he can't work ANYWHERE in the state of PA."
By the way, for someone IN his forties that spell check must be a bastard to operate.
Hehe ... sorry, couldn't resist.
At any rate, I can accept the premise (your point) about the damage wrought by a charter to conduct "boundless investigation" given no one is without skeletons in his closet (although to carry that analogy further, Clinton's closet was full and he was beginning to store them in the living room). So, we can end it on the collective sentiment within our lasts two posts.
And I'll add only this... Nixon got at least one thing right at the close of Watergate, and it applies to every elected official from county commissioner to the president of the United States - if you hand your enemies a sword, they will run you through with glee. And while Titus may find Starr's level of glee more distasteful and/or unnecessary than I, I''m comfortable with the notion that we both agree that Clinton forged that sword in the fires of his own indiscretions and presented it to Starr on bend and knee, atop a golden pillow.
"but because of his mistake in 1977 (fourty three years earlier, mind you... in case your math is bad), he can't work ANYWHERE in the state of PA."
By the way, for someone IN his forties that spell check must be a bastard to operate.
Hehe ... sorry, couldn't resist.
At any rate, I can accept the premise (your point) about the damage wrought by a charter to conduct "boundless investigation" given no one is without skeletons in his closet (although to carry that analogy further, Clinton's closet was full and he was beginning to store them in the living room). So, we can end it on the collective sentiment within our lasts two posts.
And I'll add only this... Nixon got at least one thing right at the close of Watergate, and it applies to every elected official from county commissioner to the president of the United States - if you hand your enemies a sword, they will run you through with glee. And while Titus may find Starr's level of glee more distasteful and/or unnecessary than I, I''m comfortable with the notion that we both agree that Clinton forged that sword in the fires of his own indiscretions and presented it to Starr on bend and knee, atop a golden pillow.
Monday, June 13, 2011
All I can say is...
That was a great post... and I mean that.
I know we are never going to agree on this topic 100%... much like New Deal or Andrew Jackson, there is too much baggage between us to see the full picture through the other's eyes. However...
I want to say that the ultimate responsibility for the entire Lewinsky debacle is Clinton's fault... no question. He cheated, he lied and he got caught. No getting around it, and your OJ reference did NOT go unnoticed or unappreciated. Ken Starr is not now, nor was he ever, considered (by me) as "guilty" of creating any of the mess he uncovered... that was Bill's doing entirely.
I only want to make two small points to illustrate, if not explain fully, my point of view on the whole mess:
1) I REALLY did like the OJ reference... and it was more than a little apropos, believe me. OJ's trial was even more of a circus than the Clinton impeachment and the investigative drama leading up to it... with parallels running between them left and right. One huge difference, though (besides the nature of the crime, of course) is that the "trial" of OJ was directly related to the crime being investigated by the LAPD.
I still think that Starr took the investigation far beyond the scope it was intended to take (and YES, I know he was authorized to do so by Clinton's own AG... sheesh), not because he suspected that Clinton WOULD lie about the affair, or that the affair was in some way tied to the Whitewater real estate dealings... but because his "job" was to find out anything that might make the President look bad.
Now, Ryan is going to scoff about "conspiracies and black helicopters" and crap like that... I can hear him already... but that is my gut feeling. Starr was a political "pit bull" and he'd been sicked on Clinton by people who wanted him discredited (at the very least).
2) For my last point, I have to give you an analogy from my place of employment... please, bear with me.
When we opened the joint last June, I was working with a pit boss whom we'll call Carmine. Carmine had worked in AC all his life... in fact, he'd spent 26 years working just at the Sands Casino in AC, from its first day to its last. He had mountains of experience in the gaming industry, and he had mastered a way with people (employees and public) that is not only rare in the casino industry, but valuable beyond price, too.
Now, Carmine had a clean record according to the New Jersey Gaming Commission (a tough crowd to please, believe me), and had NEVER had an issue with licensing before in his life... until he took this job in PA.
Seems he got arrested in 1977 (yes, 1977, folks) for possession of a joint. A single marijuana cigarette found in his pocket in 1977 got the man arrested. He was booked, charged, and given a day in front of the bench where he pled "no contest" and was released without fine or further sentence. Seemingly innocent enough for the NJGC for him to work another 33 years in Atlantic City without issue or question... but the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board felt differently, and last month the man was officially and finally (meaning no further appeals would be heard) denied a license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that had anything to do with gaming.
THIS is the sort of microscopic analysis that is detrimental to the cause. Carmine was the sort of employee that would have worked day and night to keep the games he was watching that the people he was managing operating smoothly and legally within the requirements of the Commonwealth and the PGCB... but because of his mistake in 1977 (fourty three years earlier, mind you... in case your math is bad), he can't work ANYWHERE in the state of PA.
Clinton could have been guilty as sin of the affair with Lewinsky (which I feel he was)... and it was his own decision and determination that led him to perjure himself in front of the courts and the public... but the ever-growing scope of the Starr investigation would have eventually found a fault with anyone that happened to be under its eye... GOP, Dem or otherwise. Unrestricted and boundless investigative license is enough to find fault with any politician... ever. What good came of it anyway? What justice was served? How was the course of American history bettered by what Starr spent months and millions digging up?
I can't blame Starr for any of the mess... Ryan is right there. You'll never hear me credit him with doing a service to the nation, either, though.
I know we are never going to agree on this topic 100%... much like New Deal or Andrew Jackson, there is too much baggage between us to see the full picture through the other's eyes. However...
I want to say that the ultimate responsibility for the entire Lewinsky debacle is Clinton's fault... no question. He cheated, he lied and he got caught. No getting around it, and your OJ reference did NOT go unnoticed or unappreciated. Ken Starr is not now, nor was he ever, considered (by me) as "guilty" of creating any of the mess he uncovered... that was Bill's doing entirely.
I only want to make two small points to illustrate, if not explain fully, my point of view on the whole mess:
1) I REALLY did like the OJ reference... and it was more than a little apropos, believe me. OJ's trial was even more of a circus than the Clinton impeachment and the investigative drama leading up to it... with parallels running between them left and right. One huge difference, though (besides the nature of the crime, of course) is that the "trial" of OJ was directly related to the crime being investigated by the LAPD.
I still think that Starr took the investigation far beyond the scope it was intended to take (and YES, I know he was authorized to do so by Clinton's own AG... sheesh), not because he suspected that Clinton WOULD lie about the affair, or that the affair was in some way tied to the Whitewater real estate dealings... but because his "job" was to find out anything that might make the President look bad.
Now, Ryan is going to scoff about "conspiracies and black helicopters" and crap like that... I can hear him already... but that is my gut feeling. Starr was a political "pit bull" and he'd been sicked on Clinton by people who wanted him discredited (at the very least).
2) For my last point, I have to give you an analogy from my place of employment... please, bear with me.
When we opened the joint last June, I was working with a pit boss whom we'll call Carmine. Carmine had worked in AC all his life... in fact, he'd spent 26 years working just at the Sands Casino in AC, from its first day to its last. He had mountains of experience in the gaming industry, and he had mastered a way with people (employees and public) that is not only rare in the casino industry, but valuable beyond price, too.
Now, Carmine had a clean record according to the New Jersey Gaming Commission (a tough crowd to please, believe me), and had NEVER had an issue with licensing before in his life... until he took this job in PA.
Seems he got arrested in 1977 (yes, 1977, folks) for possession of a joint. A single marijuana cigarette found in his pocket in 1977 got the man arrested. He was booked, charged, and given a day in front of the bench where he pled "no contest" and was released without fine or further sentence. Seemingly innocent enough for the NJGC for him to work another 33 years in Atlantic City without issue or question... but the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board felt differently, and last month the man was officially and finally (meaning no further appeals would be heard) denied a license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that had anything to do with gaming.
THIS is the sort of microscopic analysis that is detrimental to the cause. Carmine was the sort of employee that would have worked day and night to keep the games he was watching that the people he was managing operating smoothly and legally within the requirements of the Commonwealth and the PGCB... but because of his mistake in 1977 (fourty three years earlier, mind you... in case your math is bad), he can't work ANYWHERE in the state of PA.
Clinton could have been guilty as sin of the affair with Lewinsky (which I feel he was)... and it was his own decision and determination that led him to perjure himself in front of the courts and the public... but the ever-growing scope of the Starr investigation would have eventually found a fault with anyone that happened to be under its eye... GOP, Dem or otherwise. Unrestricted and boundless investigative license is enough to find fault with any politician... ever. What good came of it anyway? What justice was served? How was the course of American history bettered by what Starr spent months and millions digging up?
I can't blame Starr for any of the mess... Ryan is right there. You'll never hear me credit him with doing a service to the nation, either, though.
I never liked her perm anyway...
You know what? You did it, you convinced me. I concede. Millions of dollars spent pursuing an "innocent" man; it knocked the important issues of the day back to page 3; dragged the nation through a year of saturation over every detail; and in the end not a single conviction attained.
So let me be the first to say it - Marcia Clark, we have a bone to pick with you!
I'll get to your Newt vs Clinton moral "superiority" question, but last in this post. I'm afraid you'll be on copilot through the rest otherwise. By the way, this entire thread has got me feeling like I should be catching the newest episode of Friends, and popping in my cassette of Ice, Ice Baby.
Look, I'm not overly passionate about this Ken Starr issue, so don't get too worked up. I just find it laughable is all. You know what, strike that. That's the wrong word. The right word is "hacky." I mean "blame Kenn Starr", really? Did that Golem in glasses Carville really get to you back in 98? Convince you Starr was a wild eyed head hunter whom sacrificed goats and small children in his basement? I know you blamed Clinton too, but honestly, I can't wrap my head around your not blaming him exclusively. To invoke Starr as sharing in the blame is just so surprisingly hacky coming from you.
And this truly isn't about Party affiliation for me. Or Clinton-hating. I sincerely think that you came to the conclusion, back in the 90's, that Starr was a bad guy and partially responsible for the whole mess, and you've never been challenged on that notion. So it became defacto doctrine in your world. I honestly think that's what's going on here. And I'm just trying to unwind that Gordian knot, hoping you'll see how irrational it is.
Let me go at it this way - Richard Nixon, John Edwards, Gary Condit, John Ensign, Anthony Wiener, and undoubtedly the list could go on and on. Save Nixon, each of these men initiated a scandal via sexual misconduct. And to the man had private media hounding them, and federal investigators pursuing them (some still active). And in each instance I lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the man whom created the circus, not the circus.
Why not the same for Clinton?
In the Clinton vs Starr scenario consider this: one guy engaged in questionable behavior (Whitewater) that warranted investigation. The other guy did the investigation. One guy sent out James Carville, without a leash. The other guy got his investigatory expansions granted to him by the United States Department of Justice. One guy committed perjury, the other guy asked the questions. One guy was disbarred from the practice of law in Arkansas, the other guy never a had a single charge of prosecutorial misconduct.
The idea that you would parse out some blame for "the other guy" in this scenario is SO hackish brother.
I keep getting this image in my head of a man caught cheating. And he's yelling at his wife that they wouldn't be dragging their kids through a divorce if she wasn't so damn snoopy, and hadn't ran up one of their credit cards paying for private investigators.
I mean come on buddy, enough. I think if you really sat down and examined this impartially you would see that like Nixon, Edwards, Wiener and the rest, that the millions spent, the headlines, the figurative ring left around the White House bathtub, all these unfortunate facts were 100% Clinton's fault. To arrive at any other conclusion is to, well, blame that poor lady standing there with the maxed out credit card.
****
Between the two of us you have been much more complimentary of Newt here than I. I haven't said one way or another on the man's presidential viability.
I find him extremely intelligent, he's a historian (in a real sense, his PhD is in European History), and he has numerous good ideas, that if nothing else are original, measurable and specific.
In addition, I never, NOT ONCE in my life, have argued that William Jefferson Clinton need be impeached over his sexual misdeeds. My argument for his impeachment/resignation was (is) that he is a fundamentally dishonest man. I'll be more specific - he committed perjury. AND went before the United States public and conducted (not merely participated in mind you, but conducted) a massive lie campaign, a mammoth cover-up, a gargantuan act of profusely misleading the American public.
He went out publicly, over and over, telling lie after lie after lie. And as it unraveled the smarmy maneuvering such as, "it depends what your meaning of is, is", just combined with this massive cover-up to give me the impression of a sociopath, and I'm not kidding Titus. This wasn't simply partisan politics, or wanting the GOP to be in the White House. I am being sincere here in telling you that this was (and is) not a man I could trust, on any level. In fact I felt he had lost the trust of the entire United States. How could anyone take anything he said seriously after that fiasco? Seriously. I still feel that way about him - he is a fundamentally dishonest man.
Peggy Noonan said it a little different (and perhaps better) - "He was a fundamentally unserious man in a very serious office."
I agree.
Now, does being an adulterer mean you're unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief? I'm not willing to say that. JFK was pretty effective, so was Jefferson. If Clinton's dalliances were limited to sexual misconduct I could see people saying "that's between him, his wife, and his God" (assuming Clinton thinks those are separate things, hehe). But the massive campaign of deceit he conducted after the story broke, demonstrated to me that the man was incapable of honesty, a borderline sociopath that would, in every instance, put his own political fortunes ahead of the needs of the country.
Had Newt done that as well, I would feel the same about him, and could never support him for office. As it is, he did not. Now you can claim that it's because he wasn't in office when the stories about him emerged. But you don't know that. What I mean is, you don't know how he would have conducted himself had the details of his infidelity broken when he was Speaker, and to simply say "he would have lied too" is guess work.
I don't have to guess on Clinton - after the Lewinski story broke he convinced me (and anyone bothering to pay attention) that preserving his personal power was more important than preserving the nation.
To put it simply, I didn't trust him to put the nation ahead of himself. And I don't think there's evidence to warrant saying that same thing about Newt.
Do you not think that's a legitimate take on the matter?
So let me be the first to say it - Marcia Clark, we have a bone to pick with you!
I'll get to your Newt vs Clinton moral "superiority" question, but last in this post. I'm afraid you'll be on copilot through the rest otherwise. By the way, this entire thread has got me feeling like I should be catching the newest episode of Friends, and popping in my cassette of Ice, Ice Baby.
Look, I'm not overly passionate about this Ken Starr issue, so don't get too worked up. I just find it laughable is all. You know what, strike that. That's the wrong word. The right word is "hacky." I mean "blame Kenn Starr", really? Did that Golem in glasses Carville really get to you back in 98? Convince you Starr was a wild eyed head hunter whom sacrificed goats and small children in his basement? I know you blamed Clinton too, but honestly, I can't wrap my head around your not blaming him exclusively. To invoke Starr as sharing in the blame is just so surprisingly hacky coming from you.
And this truly isn't about Party affiliation for me. Or Clinton-hating. I sincerely think that you came to the conclusion, back in the 90's, that Starr was a bad guy and partially responsible for the whole mess, and you've never been challenged on that notion. So it became defacto doctrine in your world. I honestly think that's what's going on here. And I'm just trying to unwind that Gordian knot, hoping you'll see how irrational it is.
Let me go at it this way - Richard Nixon, John Edwards, Gary Condit, John Ensign, Anthony Wiener, and undoubtedly the list could go on and on. Save Nixon, each of these men initiated a scandal via sexual misconduct. And to the man had private media hounding them, and federal investigators pursuing them (some still active). And in each instance I lay 100% of the blame at the feet of the man whom created the circus, not the circus.
Why not the same for Clinton?
In the Clinton vs Starr scenario consider this: one guy engaged in questionable behavior (Whitewater) that warranted investigation. The other guy did the investigation. One guy sent out James Carville, without a leash. The other guy got his investigatory expansions granted to him by the United States Department of Justice. One guy committed perjury, the other guy asked the questions. One guy was disbarred from the practice of law in Arkansas, the other guy never a had a single charge of prosecutorial misconduct.
The idea that you would parse out some blame for "the other guy" in this scenario is SO hackish brother.
I keep getting this image in my head of a man caught cheating. And he's yelling at his wife that they wouldn't be dragging their kids through a divorce if she wasn't so damn snoopy, and hadn't ran up one of their credit cards paying for private investigators.
I mean come on buddy, enough. I think if you really sat down and examined this impartially you would see that like Nixon, Edwards, Wiener and the rest, that the millions spent, the headlines, the figurative ring left around the White House bathtub, all these unfortunate facts were 100% Clinton's fault. To arrive at any other conclusion is to, well, blame that poor lady standing there with the maxed out credit card.
****
Between the two of us you have been much more complimentary of Newt here than I. I haven't said one way or another on the man's presidential viability.
I find him extremely intelligent, he's a historian (in a real sense, his PhD is in European History), and he has numerous good ideas, that if nothing else are original, measurable and specific.
In addition, I never, NOT ONCE in my life, have argued that William Jefferson Clinton need be impeached over his sexual misdeeds. My argument for his impeachment/resignation was (is) that he is a fundamentally dishonest man. I'll be more specific - he committed perjury. AND went before the United States public and conducted (not merely participated in mind you, but conducted) a massive lie campaign, a mammoth cover-up, a gargantuan act of profusely misleading the American public.
He went out publicly, over and over, telling lie after lie after lie. And as it unraveled the smarmy maneuvering such as, "it depends what your meaning of is, is", just combined with this massive cover-up to give me the impression of a sociopath, and I'm not kidding Titus. This wasn't simply partisan politics, or wanting the GOP to be in the White House. I am being sincere here in telling you that this was (and is) not a man I could trust, on any level. In fact I felt he had lost the trust of the entire United States. How could anyone take anything he said seriously after that fiasco? Seriously. I still feel that way about him - he is a fundamentally dishonest man.
Peggy Noonan said it a little different (and perhaps better) - "He was a fundamentally unserious man in a very serious office."
I agree.
Now, does being an adulterer mean you're unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief? I'm not willing to say that. JFK was pretty effective, so was Jefferson. If Clinton's dalliances were limited to sexual misconduct I could see people saying "that's between him, his wife, and his God" (assuming Clinton thinks those are separate things, hehe). But the massive campaign of deceit he conducted after the story broke, demonstrated to me that the man was incapable of honesty, a borderline sociopath that would, in every instance, put his own political fortunes ahead of the needs of the country.
Had Newt done that as well, I would feel the same about him, and could never support him for office. As it is, he did not. Now you can claim that it's because he wasn't in office when the stories about him emerged. But you don't know that. What I mean is, you don't know how he would have conducted himself had the details of his infidelity broken when he was Speaker, and to simply say "he would have lied too" is guess work.
I don't have to guess on Clinton - after the Lewinski story broke he convinced me (and anyone bothering to pay attention) that preserving his personal power was more important than preserving the nation.
To put it simply, I didn't trust him to put the nation ahead of himself. And I don't think there's evidence to warrant saying that same thing about Newt.
Do you not think that's a legitimate take on the matter?
Four rules aside, then...
What is the moral or ethical superiority of Gingrich over Clinton, then?
You defended Starr, and have (in the past) supported Gingrich. Now Gingrich is running for President. Will you support him in that, if you really feel that everything Starr found about the President was grounds for an impeachment? If Clinton was (and is) morally bankrupt, where is Gingrich?
Look... I'm not even saying I don't agree with much of what Gingrich supports. I just don't think he's a good Presidential candidate, that's all. I'm wondering where you stand, and still waiting for a response.
You defended Starr, and have (in the past) supported Gingrich. Now Gingrich is running for President. Will you support him in that, if you really feel that everything Starr found about the President was grounds for an impeachment? If Clinton was (and is) morally bankrupt, where is Gingrich?
Look... I'm not even saying I don't agree with much of what Gingrich supports. I just don't think he's a good Presidential candidate, that's all. I'm wondering where you stand, and still waiting for a response.
Next time, don't read the cliff note version..
I thought I was clear - I was NOT making a moral defense of Newt, Nixon or anyone else with my 4 rules of thumb. They were not "Ryan's rules." I was simply offering commentary on why I thought the public at large seems to give one man a pass and the next one a noose, and doing it with a little humor (or so I thought).
I'm not the first guy to point out a difference between Monica & Marylin Monroe. All these "rules" were a result of my observance of the rather superficial reasoning the public at large uses to decide who gets a pass & who doesn't. An endorsement, it was not.
Geeez.
I'm not the first guy to point out a difference between Monica & Marylin Monroe. All these "rules" were a result of my observance of the rather superficial reasoning the public at large uses to decide who gets a pass & who doesn't. An endorsement, it was not.
Geeez.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
And, in my own defense...
I HATE feeling or being seen as a "Clinton apologist"... yet that is continually where I am placed in the pigeon-holes of Ryan's stereotypes.
I can't seem to make anyone (meaning Ryan) understand that the "conservative movement" in this country was so desperate to discredit a very popular President that they would resort to impeaching him over an extramarital affair that was miles beyond the scope of any legitimate investigation that might have been going on. A step that had only ever been taken one other time in our entire history... and an unsuccessful step at that. THAT is what I find unfortunate... just like the liberal left today, the conservative right of the 1990s couldn't make their message work without staining the very dignity of the nation and its highest office for purely partisan agendas.
Think about it... we spent more on the Starr Investigation than we did on veteran's benefits over the same period. And to what end? We didn't remove a President that was unfit for office... we simply made his entire time as President seem more trivial than it already would have, and reduced legitimate national issues to "page 3" status in every major news outlet across the globe.
Was Clinton wrong for having done what he did? Yes. Is the country better off for having witnessed the investigation, impeachment and acquittal? Not even a little bit. This has gotten so out of hand (even 15 years later) that I am mocked for questioning Ken Starr's motives and methods by someone who is willing to make excuses for the same behavior from the other side of the aisle.
If Clinton warranted the level of scrutiny that he received, then I am utterly and completely justified in expecting the same level of scrutiny for people like Gingrich when they are running for office, and I will use the same yardstick with no hesitation whatsoever.
How could I expect less?
I can't seem to make anyone (meaning Ryan) understand that the "conservative movement" in this country was so desperate to discredit a very popular President that they would resort to impeaching him over an extramarital affair that was miles beyond the scope of any legitimate investigation that might have been going on. A step that had only ever been taken one other time in our entire history... and an unsuccessful step at that. THAT is what I find unfortunate... just like the liberal left today, the conservative right of the 1990s couldn't make their message work without staining the very dignity of the nation and its highest office for purely partisan agendas.
Think about it... we spent more on the Starr Investigation than we did on veteran's benefits over the same period. And to what end? We didn't remove a President that was unfit for office... we simply made his entire time as President seem more trivial than it already would have, and reduced legitimate national issues to "page 3" status in every major news outlet across the globe.
Was Clinton wrong for having done what he did? Yes. Is the country better off for having witnessed the investigation, impeachment and acquittal? Not even a little bit. This has gotten so out of hand (even 15 years later) that I am mocked for questioning Ken Starr's motives and methods by someone who is willing to make excuses for the same behavior from the other side of the aisle.
If Clinton warranted the level of scrutiny that he received, then I am utterly and completely justified in expecting the same level of scrutiny for people like Gingrich when they are running for office, and I will use the same yardstick with no hesitation whatsoever.
How could I expect less?
Seriously?
In one post you are telling me I have to swallow the Starr Pill because "guilty is guilty" and no mitigating considerations can be made... and in the next, I'm told that such subtle details as the dress-size of the woman in question IS a mitigating factor in determining the suitability of a candidate that cheats on his marriage and lies about it to the public.
You can't be serious... right?
I'm forced to assume you are serious... and I can't express how disappointing that is to me. So, let's look at each factor in turn...
The Weasel Factor.
By definition (yours, I might add), the level of honesty that the man in question chooses to maintain in his dealings with the public "outing" of his affair. You seem to think that Clinton failed this factor's test, but Gingrich passed. I maintain that, since only ONE of them was ever forced to "testify" publicly as to the honesty of their position, it is a mute and inapplicable factor. No one confronted Gingrich till he was out of office for more than a year. Period.
So, when you can give me an example of ANYONE (regardless of party affiliation) that has undergone equal scrutiny and still maintained an acceptable level of honesty, I'll take your "Weasel Factor" seriously.
The Nympho Nuptial Rule.
Am I wrong here? How many times has Clinton been married and/or divorced? One marriage, no divorce. Gingrich? Three marriages, two divorces. Yet you defend the man who DOESN'T stay married as the morally and ethically superior example of a statesman?
How does that work?
The Repeat Offender Rule.
Almost surreal in its twisted logic, this is a real gem. Not a serial adulterer? Do you know who you are talking about?
1961: Newt has an affair with his married high school teacher, who leaves her husband and marries Newt.
1980: Newt has an affair with another woman, and in asking his first wife for a divorce chooses to do so while she is in the hospital recovering from surgery.
1995: Newt begins an affair with Callista Bisek, a junior intern that is 23 years younger than he is. He divorces his second wife and marries Bisek in 2000. The entire scope of the Lewinsky investigation is conducted (with Gingrich at the leadership position) while this affair is going on. A clear and undeniable case of an investigation chairman desperately needing to recuse himself from the job due to a conflict of interest, if you ask me. Rumors of the affair are first leaked out in 1997 (possibly by his second wife)... but Gingrich adamantly denies any extramarital affair.
Color me crazy... but that sounds like a "series or pattern of behavior" that might just qualify as "serial" in nature. Every major relationship and/or marriage the man has had has begun AND ended in adultery... barring the current one (which hasn't ended... yet).
When it comes to finding someone that understands the meaning and weight of words like "solemn", or "vows" or "oaths"... who am I going to think has the better grasp of the concept? The man married once, or the man married three times?
And finally...
The Ugly Betty Rule.
Dude... if you run for office someday, pray this gem never gets into the light of day.
So, without repeating the awful sentiments wrapped up in this miracle of modern day chauvinism, I can assume with all clear confidence that the same logic applies to the sort of women men marry in the first place, right?
I mean, if the looks or mental states of the "adulteress" factor in, surely the same applies to the wife? That means Reagan was less-then-perfect in his choice... since Nancy was both unattractive and obsessed with pseudo-science and the occult. Gerald Ford was a bad choice... he married a drunk. We can't BLAME FDR for having an affair... Eleanor was as homely as they come, right? Let's not forget Barbara Bush... she looked like the Skipper in a bad dress.
Honestly... I asked for a rational defense of Gingrich's suitability as a Presidential hopeful, and I get this?
Read the papers... watch the news. Gingrich and his campaign are heading exactly where I expected them to head: right down the proverbial toilet. Less than 30 days into his campaign, 1/3 of his senior staff and advisers quit; he's broke; and he is already being referred to as a "distraction" by other GOP candidates. I'm confident that the GOP "base" is as aware of Gingrich's unsuitability for the candidacy as I am.
You can't be serious... right?
I'm forced to assume you are serious... and I can't express how disappointing that is to me. So, let's look at each factor in turn...
The Weasel Factor.
By definition (yours, I might add), the level of honesty that the man in question chooses to maintain in his dealings with the public "outing" of his affair. You seem to think that Clinton failed this factor's test, but Gingrich passed. I maintain that, since only ONE of them was ever forced to "testify" publicly as to the honesty of their position, it is a mute and inapplicable factor. No one confronted Gingrich till he was out of office for more than a year. Period.
So, when you can give me an example of ANYONE (regardless of party affiliation) that has undergone equal scrutiny and still maintained an acceptable level of honesty, I'll take your "Weasel Factor" seriously.
The Nympho Nuptial Rule.
Am I wrong here? How many times has Clinton been married and/or divorced? One marriage, no divorce. Gingrich? Three marriages, two divorces. Yet you defend the man who DOESN'T stay married as the morally and ethically superior example of a statesman?
How does that work?
The Repeat Offender Rule.
Almost surreal in its twisted logic, this is a real gem. Not a serial adulterer? Do you know who you are talking about?
1961: Newt has an affair with his married high school teacher, who leaves her husband and marries Newt.
1980: Newt has an affair with another woman, and in asking his first wife for a divorce chooses to do so while she is in the hospital recovering from surgery.
1995: Newt begins an affair with Callista Bisek, a junior intern that is 23 years younger than he is. He divorces his second wife and marries Bisek in 2000. The entire scope of the Lewinsky investigation is conducted (with Gingrich at the leadership position) while this affair is going on. A clear and undeniable case of an investigation chairman desperately needing to recuse himself from the job due to a conflict of interest, if you ask me. Rumors of the affair are first leaked out in 1997 (possibly by his second wife)... but Gingrich adamantly denies any extramarital affair.
Color me crazy... but that sounds like a "series or pattern of behavior" that might just qualify as "serial" in nature. Every major relationship and/or marriage the man has had has begun AND ended in adultery... barring the current one (which hasn't ended... yet).
When it comes to finding someone that understands the meaning and weight of words like "solemn", or "vows" or "oaths"... who am I going to think has the better grasp of the concept? The man married once, or the man married three times?
And finally...
The Ugly Betty Rule.
Dude... if you run for office someday, pray this gem never gets into the light of day.
So, without repeating the awful sentiments wrapped up in this miracle of modern day chauvinism, I can assume with all clear confidence that the same logic applies to the sort of women men marry in the first place, right?
I mean, if the looks or mental states of the "adulteress" factor in, surely the same applies to the wife? That means Reagan was less-then-perfect in his choice... since Nancy was both unattractive and obsessed with pseudo-science and the occult. Gerald Ford was a bad choice... he married a drunk. We can't BLAME FDR for having an affair... Eleanor was as homely as they come, right? Let's not forget Barbara Bush... she looked like the Skipper in a bad dress.
Honestly... I asked for a rational defense of Gingrich's suitability as a Presidential hopeful, and I get this?
Read the papers... watch the news. Gingrich and his campaign are heading exactly where I expected them to head: right down the proverbial toilet. Less than 30 days into his campaign, 1/3 of his senior staff and advisers quit; he's broke; and he is already being referred to as a "distraction" by other GOP candidates. I'm confident that the GOP "base" is as aware of Gingrich's unsuitability for the candidacy as I am.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Holmes you astound me!
It's a fine question. See, NOW we're off on a topic ..
Why?
Why is it that two public men can do essentially the same thing, yet history (& our collective social conscious) record one man as a punchline and the other as a statesman? Clinton remains a joke and can never publicly smoke a cigar again. Yet both JFK & Thomas Jefferson had numerous affairs and their legacies are a thing of reverence, how?
Now surely we could go into the individual case histories of the men & find reasons that are unique to each. JFK was assassinated; Jefferson was a founding father on a level second to that only of George Washington (despite being the third president). But in pondering this question - why do some men end up scoundrels while other end up statesmen - I went looking for more generic reasons. Some rules of thumb. Some thing or things that could aide us in quickly and efficiently sizing up this quandary.
So here's my arm chair sociology report.. There are 4, ranked in order of importance:
1.) It's the cover up dummy.
Think about it for a second. Be it Clinton, Nixon, a friend, a spouse, a coworker. The cover up always seems to exceed the crime, in both magnitude and pain (and ultimately, in punishment).
Clinton was brought up on perjury charges. Nixon was destroyed by obstruction. Their troubles were made critical by their cover ups.
But it was even more than that, in terms of the general public. They both went out, publicly and persistently to claim their innocence. They went from lying to their wives, to lying to you and me. They found "too cute by half" methods of doing legal and mental Ninjitsu in order to maintain their position. Answering a prosecutor with, "it depends on what your definition of is, is" comes to mind. Now personally, and this is important for our discussion, I don't think committing the act of adultery automatically forever disqualifies a man from holding office. However, discovering a man is a serial liar, to the point of being a sociopath, does.
I'll put it another way. Bill didn't get the name "Slick Willy" because he slept with a lot of women. It was because of how he tried to linguistically maneuver out of guilt. Dennis Miller once said (in what I believe is the most accurate description of Clinton ever offered) "When you and your friends go to move a heavy couch, he's the one that fake lifts."
So lets call it the "Weasel Factor" (enough Wiener jokes already). When you publicly and persistently try to weasel out of guilt, and it unravels before everyone's eyes, you're more likely to be tossed into the scoundrel bin.
2.) The Relationships
And lets emphasize the plural there. If your wife leaves you, forget it, it's open season. John Edwards found this out. I'm convinced that had Hillary left Bill, we would have had President Gore (come to think of it, thanks Hil! hehe). Lets face it, if she stands by her man, you've got major deflection coverage. Even Kobe Bryant found that out.
The other woman - it matters if it was a one night stand, or you stay with her. If the man goes on to marry "the other woman", it helps square things with the public. It can come off as "love." A woman can be the guy's floozy OR his wife, not both. This is what Newt did, he divorced his wife and married that girl. He didn't bang an intern with a cigar and then concoct an elaborate web of lies to cover it up, all after story upon story about getting laid in the back of an Arkansas squad car at the drive through to McDonalds (I'm remembering an SNL skit with Phil Hartman, who did the best Clinton). I'm not saying Newt didn't commit adultery, or marrying her makes it ok, just that he isn't defined by the act. He's not a serial adulterer, Clinton was (is?).
So lets call it the "Nympho Nuptules Rule." If your wife stays with you, you've got a shot. If she doesn't, the only clean way out is to marry the other woman.
But even that may not overcome the hit to your reputation if people still think you'd screw a catchers mit.
And that leads me to number three.
3.) Patterns
An isolated incident can be trouble, but survivable (in terms of your reputation). But if it fits a pattern, you're really headed towards the scoundrel bin.
The rumor mill on Willy's indiscretion was active back to the early Arkansas governor days. Jennifer flowers, using state troopers to pick up women and deliver them, etc. The point is when there is a pattern of deception, you're likely to get nailed as a scoundrel (no pun intended).
And to be serious for a moment, on Newt versus Clinton. Adultery is adultery, I agree. But I never contended that committing an act of adultery was the disqualifier. It's wrong, no doubt. But people do make mistakes, and they change, grow, and don't repeat them. I think Newt could make that case plausibly. Does anyone here think Bill Clinton could? It makes me grin just typing that. Being a serial adulterer versus a single incident (in which you went on to marry the woman) does demonstrate a difference in one's judgement, to me. It's like lying. You can do it once to a friend or spouse, maybe even twice and move on with trust intact. But do it dozens of times and it becomes part of your identity.
So we'll call it the "Repeat Offender Rule." People are less sympathetic to a serial offender, no matter what the situation. And that's exactly what Bill is, and Newt is not. If you're guilty numerous times over numerous years, I feel comfortable calling your judgment into greater question than the isolated offender.
4.) Who the other woman is, matters.
If she is a subordinate, a student, secretary, intern, you're in more trouble. If she's an equal, or say famous and beautiful, you're in less trouble (gosh, I feel like I'm writing a "how-to" book for all the nefarious men in DC, ugggh.)
Beneath the Department of Treasury is a (formerly) secret door that leads to a tunnel, which connects with the White House. The official name of that entrance is "The Marlyn Monroe Door." Does anyone think there'll be a passageway called "The Lewinsky?" I doubt it. Guys in general are more likely to forgive your sleeping with a famous woman they themselves want to sleep with. It's not right, but it's true. During 1998 every married woman in America could turn to their hubby and ask, "Would you cheat on me with some heavy-set intern?" And she would get a resounding "No, no way, not a chance honey." That same wife would never ask "Would you cheat on me with Megyn Fox?" She wouldn't want the answer, and he wouldn't give it. Had Bill bedded Jennifer Aniston rather than Jennifer Flowers, he'd been better off (and I would have been jealous as hell!).
So, cruel and unfair as it is, we'll call it The Ugly Betty Rule. As president if you do Madeline Albright you're in trouble (and suffering from Glaucoma). Do Julia Roberts, and you're in the hall of fame.
So there you have it. That's my list.
Just an off the cuff montage of 4 reasons I think one woman's scoundrel is another woman's statesman.
Agree?
Why?
Why is it that two public men can do essentially the same thing, yet history (& our collective social conscious) record one man as a punchline and the other as a statesman? Clinton remains a joke and can never publicly smoke a cigar again. Yet both JFK & Thomas Jefferson had numerous affairs and their legacies are a thing of reverence, how?
Now surely we could go into the individual case histories of the men & find reasons that are unique to each. JFK was assassinated; Jefferson was a founding father on a level second to that only of George Washington (despite being the third president). But in pondering this question - why do some men end up scoundrels while other end up statesmen - I went looking for more generic reasons. Some rules of thumb. Some thing or things that could aide us in quickly and efficiently sizing up this quandary.
So here's my arm chair sociology report.. There are 4, ranked in order of importance:
1.) It's the cover up dummy.
Think about it for a second. Be it Clinton, Nixon, a friend, a spouse, a coworker. The cover up always seems to exceed the crime, in both magnitude and pain (and ultimately, in punishment).
Clinton was brought up on perjury charges. Nixon was destroyed by obstruction. Their troubles were made critical by their cover ups.
But it was even more than that, in terms of the general public. They both went out, publicly and persistently to claim their innocence. They went from lying to their wives, to lying to you and me. They found "too cute by half" methods of doing legal and mental Ninjitsu in order to maintain their position. Answering a prosecutor with, "it depends on what your definition of is, is" comes to mind. Now personally, and this is important for our discussion, I don't think committing the act of adultery automatically forever disqualifies a man from holding office. However, discovering a man is a serial liar, to the point of being a sociopath, does.
I'll put it another way. Bill didn't get the name "Slick Willy" because he slept with a lot of women. It was because of how he tried to linguistically maneuver out of guilt. Dennis Miller once said (in what I believe is the most accurate description of Clinton ever offered) "When you and your friends go to move a heavy couch, he's the one that fake lifts."
So lets call it the "Weasel Factor" (enough Wiener jokes already). When you publicly and persistently try to weasel out of guilt, and it unravels before everyone's eyes, you're more likely to be tossed into the scoundrel bin.
2.) The Relationships
And lets emphasize the plural there. If your wife leaves you, forget it, it's open season. John Edwards found this out. I'm convinced that had Hillary left Bill, we would have had President Gore (come to think of it, thanks Hil! hehe). Lets face it, if she stands by her man, you've got major deflection coverage. Even Kobe Bryant found that out.
The other woman - it matters if it was a one night stand, or you stay with her. If the man goes on to marry "the other woman", it helps square things with the public. It can come off as "love." A woman can be the guy's floozy OR his wife, not both. This is what Newt did, he divorced his wife and married that girl. He didn't bang an intern with a cigar and then concoct an elaborate web of lies to cover it up, all after story upon story about getting laid in the back of an Arkansas squad car at the drive through to McDonalds (I'm remembering an SNL skit with Phil Hartman, who did the best Clinton). I'm not saying Newt didn't commit adultery, or marrying her makes it ok, just that he isn't defined by the act. He's not a serial adulterer, Clinton was (is?).
So lets call it the "Nympho Nuptules Rule." If your wife stays with you, you've got a shot. If she doesn't, the only clean way out is to marry the other woman.
But even that may not overcome the hit to your reputation if people still think you'd screw a catchers mit.
And that leads me to number three.
3.) Patterns
An isolated incident can be trouble, but survivable (in terms of your reputation). But if it fits a pattern, you're really headed towards the scoundrel bin.
The rumor mill on Willy's indiscretion was active back to the early Arkansas governor days. Jennifer flowers, using state troopers to pick up women and deliver them, etc. The point is when there is a pattern of deception, you're likely to get nailed as a scoundrel (no pun intended).
And to be serious for a moment, on Newt versus Clinton. Adultery is adultery, I agree. But I never contended that committing an act of adultery was the disqualifier. It's wrong, no doubt. But people do make mistakes, and they change, grow, and don't repeat them. I think Newt could make that case plausibly. Does anyone here think Bill Clinton could? It makes me grin just typing that. Being a serial adulterer versus a single incident (in which you went on to marry the woman) does demonstrate a difference in one's judgement, to me. It's like lying. You can do it once to a friend or spouse, maybe even twice and move on with trust intact. But do it dozens of times and it becomes part of your identity.
So we'll call it the "Repeat Offender Rule." People are less sympathetic to a serial offender, no matter what the situation. And that's exactly what Bill is, and Newt is not. If you're guilty numerous times over numerous years, I feel comfortable calling your judgment into greater question than the isolated offender.
4.) Who the other woman is, matters.
If she is a subordinate, a student, secretary, intern, you're in more trouble. If she's an equal, or say famous and beautiful, you're in less trouble (gosh, I feel like I'm writing a "how-to" book for all the nefarious men in DC, ugggh.)
Beneath the Department of Treasury is a (formerly) secret door that leads to a tunnel, which connects with the White House. The official name of that entrance is "The Marlyn Monroe Door." Does anyone think there'll be a passageway called "The Lewinsky?" I doubt it. Guys in general are more likely to forgive your sleeping with a famous woman they themselves want to sleep with. It's not right, but it's true. During 1998 every married woman in America could turn to their hubby and ask, "Would you cheat on me with some heavy-set intern?" And she would get a resounding "No, no way, not a chance honey." That same wife would never ask "Would you cheat on me with Megyn Fox?" She wouldn't want the answer, and he wouldn't give it. Had Bill bedded Jennifer Aniston rather than Jennifer Flowers, he'd been better off (and I would have been jealous as hell!).
So, cruel and unfair as it is, we'll call it The Ugly Betty Rule. As president if you do Madeline Albright you're in trouble (and suffering from Glaucoma). Do Julia Roberts, and you're in the hall of fame.
So there you have it. That's my list.
Just an off the cuff montage of 4 reasons I think one woman's scoundrel is another woman's statesman.
Agree?
Starr Power
I have a larger point in a separate post I want to make (assuming I have time), but I just had to make mention of this ...
First off, Nixon was guilty as hell, period. I'll get to Newt in the other post.
That being said-
I have never, not once, had a conversation with a Clinton apologist regarding his sex scandal (I guess I should be more specific - Lewinsky), & not not listen to them parse out at least a sliver of blame (often more) for Ken Starr. And you didn't endanger that streak, let me tell you.
Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.
In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true.
I mean really? That makes 2 posts in as many days that you concede to it being all Clinton's fault ... but not really, it was mainly Starr, but mostly Clinton, but partially - ENOUGH.
Such duplicity Titus, tisk, tisk.
The idea that you find fault with Starr, on any level, for Clinton's "stain" on the White House is laughable. I can't even take that position seriously. And the idea that Starr "got Clinton to lie", HA! Come on man, this is bush league stuff, and you're a starting AAA third basemen!
And what's more revealing is that you find it unfortunate not that Clinton did these things, but that he is to "blame." At least, that's how you phrased it.
What is often conveniently forgot by the blame Starr (at least a little, wink and nod) crowd is that each and every expansion of Starr's investigatory powers were granted to him by Clinton's very own DOJ. The Special Prosecutor's office had to seek and get approval from Justice for each and every expansion beyond Whitewater. I can only assume that Starr's argument was so compelling that Janet Reno had no choice but to say yes, go forth my son and investigate. Less I'm to believe that she was also part of the "vast right wing conspiracy." So if you have a beef with where and how his investigation proceeded, lay it at Reno's size 13 shoes.
Now that being said, did Starr and his office have political motivations and allegiances that weren't in Clinton's best interests? Undoubtedly. But are you telling me the Watergate Hearing participants didn't grandstand? Didn't build entire careers in some cases based on the zeal with which they went after Nixon? Woodward and Bernstein weren't exactly Republicans, shall I blame them for pushing the investigation to the point that poor Nixy felt he "had to" order operatives to interfere with a federal investigation, all because of a fairly meaningless (in and of itself) third rate burglary? And how much money in adjusted dollars was spent investigating Watergate and conducting those hearings after they had apprehended the actual burglars? "HOW HIGH UP DOES IT GO!?" they shouted, with not a scant peice of evidence (at the time) that it did. That wasn't politically motivated? Come on...
Do you see my point? Whether the prosecutor is politically motivated is irrelevant when the prosecuted has been caught red handed.
Look, a guy makes an illegal left turn. The cop sees this and turns on the siren. The guy doesn't pull over, he speeds up. The ensuing chase causes a half million dollars in property damage, over a $60 ticket. And claiming that it wasn't worth it, some people will always come out and blame the cop. Those people are retarded.
Come on man - blaming Starr is "the sun was in my eyes coach" excuse. It's suing McDonalds for their coffee being too hot. It's a parent blaming Wendy's for their kid's childhood obesity. The bottom line is, you minus Starr from this whole thing and it's arguable that it unfolds nearly the same way. You remove Clinton's behavior, his serial adultery, his compulsive lying, and the thing never happens.
So just say Clinton was to blame, 100%, with no qualifications already.
Because to say anything else, is, well... being a Wiener.
First off, Nixon was guilty as hell, period. I'll get to Newt in the other post.
That being said-
I have never, not once, had a conversation with a Clinton apologist regarding his sex scandal (I guess I should be more specific - Lewinsky), & not not listen to them parse out at least a sliver of blame (often more) for Ken Starr. And you didn't endanger that streak, let me tell you.
Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.
In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true.
I mean really? That makes 2 posts in as many days that you concede to it being all Clinton's fault ... but not really, it was mainly Starr, but mostly Clinton, but partially - ENOUGH.
Such duplicity Titus, tisk, tisk.
The idea that you find fault with Starr, on any level, for Clinton's "stain" on the White House is laughable. I can't even take that position seriously. And the idea that Starr "got Clinton to lie", HA! Come on man, this is bush league stuff, and you're a starting AAA third basemen!
And what's more revealing is that you find it unfortunate not that Clinton did these things, but that he is to "blame." At least, that's how you phrased it.
What is often conveniently forgot by the blame Starr (at least a little, wink and nod) crowd is that each and every expansion of Starr's investigatory powers were granted to him by Clinton's very own DOJ. The Special Prosecutor's office had to seek and get approval from Justice for each and every expansion beyond Whitewater. I can only assume that Starr's argument was so compelling that Janet Reno had no choice but to say yes, go forth my son and investigate. Less I'm to believe that she was also part of the "vast right wing conspiracy." So if you have a beef with where and how his investigation proceeded, lay it at Reno's size 13 shoes.
Now that being said, did Starr and his office have political motivations and allegiances that weren't in Clinton's best interests? Undoubtedly. But are you telling me the Watergate Hearing participants didn't grandstand? Didn't build entire careers in some cases based on the zeal with which they went after Nixon? Woodward and Bernstein weren't exactly Republicans, shall I blame them for pushing the investigation to the point that poor Nixy felt he "had to" order operatives to interfere with a federal investigation, all because of a fairly meaningless (in and of itself) third rate burglary? And how much money in adjusted dollars was spent investigating Watergate and conducting those hearings after they had apprehended the actual burglars? "HOW HIGH UP DOES IT GO!?" they shouted, with not a scant peice of evidence (at the time) that it did. That wasn't politically motivated? Come on...
Do you see my point? Whether the prosecutor is politically motivated is irrelevant when the prosecuted has been caught red handed.
Look, a guy makes an illegal left turn. The cop sees this and turns on the siren. The guy doesn't pull over, he speeds up. The ensuing chase causes a half million dollars in property damage, over a $60 ticket. And claiming that it wasn't worth it, some people will always come out and blame the cop. Those people are retarded.
Come on man - blaming Starr is "the sun was in my eyes coach" excuse. It's suing McDonalds for their coffee being too hot. It's a parent blaming Wendy's for their kid's childhood obesity. The bottom line is, you minus Starr from this whole thing and it's arguable that it unfolds nearly the same way. You remove Clinton's behavior, his serial adultery, his compulsive lying, and the thing never happens.
So just say Clinton was to blame, 100%, with no qualifications already.
Because to say anything else, is, well... being a Wiener.
Friday, June 10, 2011
One more point, please...
Allow me to ask this one question... I've never gotten a good answer, no matter how often or to whom I ask it:
Why was what Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky so morally and ethically unjustifiable, yet what Newt Gingrich was doing at the same time is not worth a second thought?
Both had affairs with interns while in office, both lied about them to their spouses and the voting public, and both have admitted to these lies openly since then. One is to be dismissed out-of-hand because of it, while the other is a serious contender for the nomination for the highest office in the land... how is that justifiable? How is that even rational?
If Clinton's lack of character and judgement was enough to warrant an attempt to remove him from office, why wouldn't Gingrich's actions be enough to exclude him from consideration for the same office? Neither was forthright or honest prior to the information about the affairs leaking out, and neither "resigned" their office once the information was out... why should I assume that Gingrich is any better suited for a position that Starr's investigation convinced so many that Clinton was unsuited for?
If the answer is that the character associated with each of these "judgement calls" is fundamentally different based on political positions, I can assure you that this discussion is going to get heated... very fast.
Hehe.
Why was what Bill Clinton did with Lewinsky so morally and ethically unjustifiable, yet what Newt Gingrich was doing at the same time is not worth a second thought?
Both had affairs with interns while in office, both lied about them to their spouses and the voting public, and both have admitted to these lies openly since then. One is to be dismissed out-of-hand because of it, while the other is a serious contender for the nomination for the highest office in the land... how is that justifiable? How is that even rational?
If Clinton's lack of character and judgement was enough to warrant an attempt to remove him from office, why wouldn't Gingrich's actions be enough to exclude him from consideration for the same office? Neither was forthright or honest prior to the information about the affairs leaking out, and neither "resigned" their office once the information was out... why should I assume that Gingrich is any better suited for a position that Starr's investigation convinced so many that Clinton was unsuited for?
If the answer is that the character associated with each of these "judgement calls" is fundamentally different based on political positions, I can assure you that this discussion is going to get heated... very fast.
Hehe.
To clarify...
To address each of your points...
I might, indeed, have been unclear. It was a busy evening for me, as I don't usually "Bund" after work. My apologies.
#1) I know Mr. Ford is dead... I was being ironic.
#2) My position on Clinton is that 90% of everything that came out of the Starr investigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged real estate purchases he was instructed to investigate in the first place. In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?
#3) My point is that the Starr investigation was 100% politically motivated. There isn't one iota of what that man brought to the public's eye (via a rabid media, too... since when does a Federal investigator use mainstream media as the conduit for his investigation information, anyway?) that was in the pervue of his initial investigative agenda... not one. My point is that there is a price to be paid for that sort of "public flogging", whether it is justified by "bad character" or not.
FDR was known to have had an affair for his entire Presidency (even Eleanor knew about it), but most people agree that it couldn't or wouldn't have done any "public" good to have exposed the man for his "bad character" while he was in office. The "price" I keep referring to is the cost associated with making the Office of the President (or any major office in the govenrment) look cheap and demeaned by poor judgement for no gain other than partisan politics.
Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true. Why then should Nixon NOT bear the responsibility for his "bad character"? Why is Ford justified in pardoning Nixon, if Clinton deserved what he got? That is my reasoning in stating that I can't decisively dismiss arguments against Ford's pardon. I think it was the right thing to do, but NOT because I think Nixon was not guilty. I think Nixon was guilty, just as I think Clinton was guilty... but neither Clinton nor Nixon suffered even a fraction as much as the country did, in each episode. Our nation's legacy, history, honor and prestige all suffered at the hands of men who exercised very, very bad judgement.
It all boils down to the question "Where does justice lay?" Is it handed out through our legal system, or is it handed out via the media circus and the court of public opinion? Nixon never saw his day in "court"... and the country was better off for it, but Clinton was charged, tried and "judged" by everyone watching TV or reading a newspaper, and the country is a little less than what it was because of it.
I'm still a little irked by the thought that I am having to justify my position (as opposed to clarifying it) to someone that so ardently defended the perceived "position" of another scandalized former President... Andrew Jackson. I'm expected to over-look or ignore his blanket disregard for the law and basic human understanding in light of the "good things" he did for the country... but I should expect each and every sitting public official to readily admit to each and every sexual or moral indiscretion that might have occured in their lives? If it all comes down to character and judgement... there aren't many that can stand up to the test, are there?
I might, indeed, have been unclear. It was a busy evening for me, as I don't usually "Bund" after work. My apologies.
#1) I know Mr. Ford is dead... I was being ironic.
#2) My position on Clinton is that 90% of everything that came out of the Starr investigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged real estate purchases he was instructed to investigate in the first place. In fact, the "Whitewater" investigation fizzled almost immediately... but the Lewinsky scandal proved hot and juicy. So, eleven months and $70 million later, Starr finally gets Clinton to lie outright on camera ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.")... victory is attained, right?
#3) My point is that the Starr investigation was 100% politically motivated. There isn't one iota of what that man brought to the public's eye (via a rabid media, too... since when does a Federal investigator use mainstream media as the conduit for his investigation information, anyway?) that was in the pervue of his initial investigative agenda... not one. My point is that there is a price to be paid for that sort of "public flogging", whether it is justified by "bad character" or not.
FDR was known to have had an affair for his entire Presidency (even Eleanor knew about it), but most people agree that it couldn't or wouldn't have done any "public" good to have exposed the man for his "bad character" while he was in office. The "price" I keep referring to is the cost associated with making the Office of the President (or any major office in the govenrment) look cheap and demeaned by poor judgement for no gain other than partisan politics.
Had Starr actually focused on alleged criminal activity by the President when he was still Governor, then the matter would have been resolved quickly and quietly, and a tangible stain that never really goes away would never have been placed on the White House. If you don't see what I am saying, then ask yourself this: When I say "tangible stain" in association or reference to the Lewinsky scandal... do you think about a stained dress? I do, and I don't think that is a good thing.
Yes, ultimately, the responsibility for that association lies with Clinton himself. He had the affair, he bears the blame for the results... I know this. I find it unfortunate, but it is true. Why then should Nixon NOT bear the responsibility for his "bad character"? Why is Ford justified in pardoning Nixon, if Clinton deserved what he got? That is my reasoning in stating that I can't decisively dismiss arguments against Ford's pardon. I think it was the right thing to do, but NOT because I think Nixon was not guilty. I think Nixon was guilty, just as I think Clinton was guilty... but neither Clinton nor Nixon suffered even a fraction as much as the country did, in each episode. Our nation's legacy, history, honor and prestige all suffered at the hands of men who exercised very, very bad judgement.
It all boils down to the question "Where does justice lay?" Is it handed out through our legal system, or is it handed out via the media circus and the court of public opinion? Nixon never saw his day in "court"... and the country was better off for it, but Clinton was charged, tried and "judged" by everyone watching TV or reading a newspaper, and the country is a little less than what it was because of it.
I'm still a little irked by the thought that I am having to justify my position (as opposed to clarifying it) to someone that so ardently defended the perceived "position" of another scandalized former President... Andrew Jackson. I'm expected to over-look or ignore his blanket disregard for the law and basic human understanding in light of the "good things" he did for the country... but I should expect each and every sitting public official to readily admit to each and every sexual or moral indiscretion that might have occured in their lives? If it all comes down to character and judgement... there aren't many that can stand up to the test, are there?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
What?
Truth be told, I invoked Starr's name just to needle you. "90's Democrats" react to that name the way current MSNBC pundits react to "Sarah Palin", you guys go into full body convulsions like a lab monkey on amphetamines.
But perhaps invoking that name worked a little too well, because I found your post rather, well, a tad incoherent.
First, I can't ask "Gerry" Ford, nor can anyone else, he's deceased.
But more to the point I don't really "get" your position on Clinton. You cop to his low moral character, but then offer some degree of, I guess, retroactive moral clemency because of his Senate acquittal? Nixon wasn't even tried. Was never brought up on a single charge. By your reasoning does he not then deserve an even greater degree of retroactive moral clemency? That just doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to admit that from Jennifer Flowers to Lewinski that Clinton was of low character, and lied straight faced to the nation numerous times, then do so. He wasn't being tried in Congress for banging women that weren't his wife, so I fail to see why how his acquittal factors into it. The bottom line is he'll forever be a punch line for cigar jokes, just as Nixon ensured the name "Dick" would forever be associated with the word "tricky" (man is there a mammoth joke in there somewhere!).
And speaking of Nixon...
Lumping the Ford pardon into this just seems bizarre to me. Clinton pardoned a Puerto Rican terrorist, reportedly to ensure Hillary's electability in New York. Lincoln pardoned Confederates. Men whom actively took up arms against their government. A pardon is a unique Constitutional Right of the CIC. You can argue which pardons were worthy of the signature and which weren't, but I wouldn't toss them into a debate about morality or lapses in judgement involving sex scandals.
In fact, I could argue Ford's pardoning of Millhouse was COURAGEOUS. Despite the best efforts of Chevy Chase on SNL, Ford was no dummy. He simply had to know how politically risky it was to pardon Nixon. He had to know that it may well cost him reelection, they had polling data back then. In fact his only shot may have been to crucify his former boss. Yet he didn't do the politically expedient thing for his own career. I always presumed that on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate he decided the country had had enough of being torn apart at the seams, and he put the nation's interests ahead of his own. Why else do something that would so obviously condemn his political future? And while freeing terrorists, like Slick Willy did, isn't what I would use the pardon for, it is an unquestionable Right of the chief executive and not something worth mentioning along side "Weiner-Gate." In my opinion this is particularly true with the Nixon pardon - Ford used the power of the pardon for precisely what it was designed to do, heal the nation and move on. I don't see a "judgement" parallel with sex tweeting, or phallic uses of a good stogie.
But perhaps invoking that name worked a little too well, because I found your post rather, well, a tad incoherent.
First, I can't ask "Gerry" Ford, nor can anyone else, he's deceased.
But more to the point I don't really "get" your position on Clinton. You cop to his low moral character, but then offer some degree of, I guess, retroactive moral clemency because of his Senate acquittal? Nixon wasn't even tried. Was never brought up on a single charge. By your reasoning does he not then deserve an even greater degree of retroactive moral clemency? That just doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to admit that from Jennifer Flowers to Lewinski that Clinton was of low character, and lied straight faced to the nation numerous times, then do so. He wasn't being tried in Congress for banging women that weren't his wife, so I fail to see why how his acquittal factors into it. The bottom line is he'll forever be a punch line for cigar jokes, just as Nixon ensured the name "Dick" would forever be associated with the word "tricky" (man is there a mammoth joke in there somewhere!).
And speaking of Nixon...
Lumping the Ford pardon into this just seems bizarre to me. Clinton pardoned a Puerto Rican terrorist, reportedly to ensure Hillary's electability in New York. Lincoln pardoned Confederates. Men whom actively took up arms against their government. A pardon is a unique Constitutional Right of the CIC. You can argue which pardons were worthy of the signature and which weren't, but I wouldn't toss them into a debate about morality or lapses in judgement involving sex scandals.
In fact, I could argue Ford's pardoning of Millhouse was COURAGEOUS. Despite the best efforts of Chevy Chase on SNL, Ford was no dummy. He simply had to know how politically risky it was to pardon Nixon. He had to know that it may well cost him reelection, they had polling data back then. In fact his only shot may have been to crucify his former boss. Yet he didn't do the politically expedient thing for his own career. I always presumed that on the heels of Vietnam and Watergate he decided the country had had enough of being torn apart at the seams, and he put the nation's interests ahead of his own. Why else do something that would so obviously condemn his political future? And while freeing terrorists, like Slick Willy did, isn't what I would use the pardon for, it is an unquestionable Right of the chief executive and not something worth mentioning along side "Weiner-Gate." In my opinion this is particularly true with the Nixon pardon - Ford used the power of the pardon for precisely what it was designed to do, heal the nation and move on. I don't see a "judgement" parallel with sex tweeting, or phallic uses of a good stogie.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
I was fine until you said "Ken Starr"...
I have no beef with what you wrote... character matters, no question about it. That is why we have the primary and general election system that we do: we have the opportunity, as a nation, to "vet" our candidates before deciding if they are ready to serve in office.
Wiener is just that... a wiener. He's an idiot of the first order, and the disaster that is his career and life right now is wholly his own doing. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.
So, having said that character matters, we move into your "justification" for the Ken Starr investigation. Without rehashing the whole affair... and why do that? There are only 470,000 pages of evidence and testimony that are available to read over if we choose... I really feel bound to point out that there is (in my mind) a difference between finding a "bad character" in an important position within our government, and conducting a "character assassination" for purely partisan political gains.
Clinton lied, and Clinton paid the price... but the United States Senate (all one hundred and one members present, too) found the man "not guilty" of both perjury and obstruction (the only charges to make it past the House of Representatives). Thus, by our own Constitutional system of government, the man was determined to NOT be a "bad character"... at least not bad enough to remove from office. No "high crimes or misdemeanors" in other words.
Furthermore, character is most often proven by judgements made and acted upon by the individual. Obviously, Clinton's judgement was questionable, to say the least... but he surely wasn't alone in that arena, was he?
President Richard Millhouse Nixon actively and knowingly obstructed an FBI criminal investigation via the CIA, and lied about it for more than two years. He resigned rather than face impeachment and conviction by the Senate (a certainty, I think)... but more than a dozen jurisdictions were gearing up for criminal cases within hours of his getting off of Marine One on August 9, 1974, at Andrews Air Force Base.
Which leads us to "judgement call #2"... President Gerald Ford giving Nixon a full, blanket pardon on Sept. 8, 1974. I'm sure all of us here agree that Ford's actions were the best actions for the nation... but "right" or not, he gave an alleged felon (on as many as 11 counts, too) a free pass, and many in this country (to this day) still think it was the WRONG thing to do. I'm convinced it is the single biggest contributor to Ford's loss in the 1976 general election.
Nixon's actions were politically motivated... of that I am utterly convinced. He wasn't "evil" and his crimes can't be equated with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer or Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh... but he was WRONG in his judgement and he was WRONG in his actions.
By extension, the same stain is cast on Gerald Ford... who am I to say that he was right when faced with the argument that he was wrong? Only someone as dense as granite would actually believe that the man could have beat a Senate conviction in an impeachment trial, or that he could have gotten out of a Federal obstruction and perjury charge once out of office... the man was hung by his own words on the tapes he tried so hard to keep hidden. Ford can justify his actions as "healing the wounds" of the nation, but it doesn't mean the argument that he was keeping an ex-President and a fellow GOP hack "SAFE" doesn't have weight, does it?
Your point that there is a price to be paid for letting "poor judgement" run wild in our government is perfectly valid. The point I am making is that there is a price to be paid for airing these cases of "bad judgement" in the manner and means that the Wiener-gate scandal has been handled, too... and it isn't the sort of price that can be measured easily, or quickly.
If you doubt me... ask Gerry Ford.
Wiener is just that... a wiener. He's an idiot of the first order, and the disaster that is his career and life right now is wholly his own doing. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.
So, having said that character matters, we move into your "justification" for the Ken Starr investigation. Without rehashing the whole affair... and why do that? There are only 470,000 pages of evidence and testimony that are available to read over if we choose... I really feel bound to point out that there is (in my mind) a difference between finding a "bad character" in an important position within our government, and conducting a "character assassination" for purely partisan political gains.
Clinton lied, and Clinton paid the price... but the United States Senate (all one hundred and one members present, too) found the man "not guilty" of both perjury and obstruction (the only charges to make it past the House of Representatives). Thus, by our own Constitutional system of government, the man was determined to NOT be a "bad character"... at least not bad enough to remove from office. No "high crimes or misdemeanors" in other words.
Furthermore, character is most often proven by judgements made and acted upon by the individual. Obviously, Clinton's judgement was questionable, to say the least... but he surely wasn't alone in that arena, was he?
President Richard Millhouse Nixon actively and knowingly obstructed an FBI criminal investigation via the CIA, and lied about it for more than two years. He resigned rather than face impeachment and conviction by the Senate (a certainty, I think)... but more than a dozen jurisdictions were gearing up for criminal cases within hours of his getting off of Marine One on August 9, 1974, at Andrews Air Force Base.
Which leads us to "judgement call #2"... President Gerald Ford giving Nixon a full, blanket pardon on Sept. 8, 1974. I'm sure all of us here agree that Ford's actions were the best actions for the nation... but "right" or not, he gave an alleged felon (on as many as 11 counts, too) a free pass, and many in this country (to this day) still think it was the WRONG thing to do. I'm convinced it is the single biggest contributor to Ford's loss in the 1976 general election.
Nixon's actions were politically motivated... of that I am utterly convinced. He wasn't "evil" and his crimes can't be equated with the likes of Jeffery Dalmer or Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh... but he was WRONG in his judgement and he was WRONG in his actions.
By extension, the same stain is cast on Gerald Ford... who am I to say that he was right when faced with the argument that he was wrong? Only someone as dense as granite would actually believe that the man could have beat a Senate conviction in an impeachment trial, or that he could have gotten out of a Federal obstruction and perjury charge once out of office... the man was hung by his own words on the tapes he tried so hard to keep hidden. Ford can justify his actions as "healing the wounds" of the nation, but it doesn't mean the argument that he was keeping an ex-President and a fellow GOP hack "SAFE" doesn't have weight, does it?
Your point that there is a price to be paid for letting "poor judgement" run wild in our government is perfectly valid. The point I am making is that there is a price to be paid for airing these cases of "bad judgement" in the manner and means that the Wiener-gate scandal has been handled, too... and it isn't the sort of price that can be measured easily, or quickly.
If you doubt me... ask Gerry Ford.
"I did not have text with that woman."
Can I make a serious point regarding "Wiener-gate?"
First, you must appreciate any story that can reduce even 50 year old men to snickering 7 year old boys.
Ok, my serious point ...
Netflix provides a plethora of documentaries, some good (WWII in HD for example), some bad (i.e. National Geographic's Alexander the Great). A good one, by PBS, is Egypt's Golden Age. And I viewed this some evenings ago. It was the story of how a succession of three Pharaohs starting around 1350 B.C. liberated Upper Egypt from the Hyksos and Lower Egypt from the Nubians, uniting the kingdom thus ushering in the golden era.
One of the areas of success for the Pharaohs was their spy network. It was more aggressive and sophisticated than their rivals.
1350 B.C. ... spy network, crucial.
Now fast forward to a spy world the three of us are more familiar with - the Cold War. Amidst all the groin jokes and absurdity, the several dozen pages of seedy text messages that have now come out, has it occurred to anyone how prime for black mail from a sovereign power this congressman was?
Now you may say he's just a congressman, and maybe he had access to some sensitive material, but he wasn't the national security advisor, etc. Ok, fine. But consider all the electronic communications this man put out into space and the ability, the "sophisticated and aggressive" ability, of nation states such as China, or Russia to capture that information. Now combine that with who Wiener's wife is - the former chief of staff and current top aide to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Is this not exactly the type of "in", of angle the FSB (formerly the KGB) would look for? Do you see how few degrees of separation from the president himself this could be to spy masters?
The whole history of mankind is ripe with spies and their influence, and in the most technologically advanced point in the history of our species are we to believe that they aren't active NOW?
THIS is why character matters. THIS is why "sexual indiscretions" matter. THIS is why I (and Ken Starr, for that matter) was right about how serious interns and cigars are. Because while a man can separate his personal and public life, those two lives can not seperate the man. In other words a man can have two different worlds, but the same judgement governs both.
First, you must appreciate any story that can reduce even 50 year old men to snickering 7 year old boys.
Ok, my serious point ...
Netflix provides a plethora of documentaries, some good (WWII in HD for example), some bad (i.e. National Geographic's Alexander the Great). A good one, by PBS, is Egypt's Golden Age. And I viewed this some evenings ago. It was the story of how a succession of three Pharaohs starting around 1350 B.C. liberated Upper Egypt from the Hyksos and Lower Egypt from the Nubians, uniting the kingdom thus ushering in the golden era.
One of the areas of success for the Pharaohs was their spy network. It was more aggressive and sophisticated than their rivals.
1350 B.C. ... spy network, crucial.
Now fast forward to a spy world the three of us are more familiar with - the Cold War. Amidst all the groin jokes and absurdity, the several dozen pages of seedy text messages that have now come out, has it occurred to anyone how prime for black mail from a sovereign power this congressman was?
Now you may say he's just a congressman, and maybe he had access to some sensitive material, but he wasn't the national security advisor, etc. Ok, fine. But consider all the electronic communications this man put out into space and the ability, the "sophisticated and aggressive" ability, of nation states such as China, or Russia to capture that information. Now combine that with who Wiener's wife is - the former chief of staff and current top aide to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Is this not exactly the type of "in", of angle the FSB (formerly the KGB) would look for? Do you see how few degrees of separation from the president himself this could be to spy masters?
The whole history of mankind is ripe with spies and their influence, and in the most technologically advanced point in the history of our species are we to believe that they aren't active NOW?
THIS is why character matters. THIS is why "sexual indiscretions" matter. THIS is why I (and Ken Starr, for that matter) was right about how serious interns and cigars are. Because while a man can separate his personal and public life, those two lives can not seperate the man. In other words a man can have two different worlds, but the same judgement governs both.
Monday, June 6, 2011
I thought this was interesting...
This article caught my eye, so I followed up and found it to be very accurate in its assessment.
Seems the author thinks that the Palestinian peace process is less complicated than anyone thought.
Obama has made numerous parallels between the violence in Israel today and the violence in Northern Ireland 20 years ago... so much so that his pick for Special Envoy was none other than George Mitchell, Clinton's former Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the peace settlement between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK.
The Good Friday Accords have been a major success, and things have never been safer or more stable between the two nations since that time. I don't want anyone to think that I am taking away from that peace process... but is the peace process the only factor to consider here?
In 1970-71, 16% of the entire population of Northern Ireland was made up of men between the ages of 15 and 21 years of age. By 1998 (the year the Good Friday Accords were signed), that 16% well into their 40's, with families, jobs and mountains of responsibility (as well as a booming "Celtic Tiger" economy). No one wanted to fight anymore... or very few did. Peace was more profitable than fighting. Even more interestingly, though... the birthrate for Catholics was over 6 kids per family and over 5 kids per Protestant family. By 1995, it was under three for both demographics. The rate of population growth had fallen markedly for both sides, in other words.
Population numbers in Palestine are harder to come by, because it is in the best interest of the PA to keep them inflated to increase foreign aid to the populus... but if the WHO and the Israelis are to be believed, the birthrate is falling far faster than the PA wants to admit. The rate in the 1960s was over 8 kids per family... but now is closer to three, and more and more outsourcing by the Israelis to places like the West Bank for technical jobs is making a growing segment of the Palestinian population increasingly aware of how good life can be with "peace" the norm, rather than the exception.
In fact, if the trend of the last 8 years continues... less than two percent of the Palestinain population will be within that volatile 15-21 year old bracket by 2040 (its at 12% now), and the over-all population will be lower than the 28 million estimated right now (possibly by as much as 8%).
I'm not suggesting older populations can't or won't fight... 1940's America is proof positive that this is not the case... but they are less volatile, and less likely to fight for fighting's sake than a population of teenagers with no jobs and no prospects. Northern Ireland is proof of that.
The sad thing is, Obama must not see this. His pick for Special Envoy to Palestine, George Mitchell, went in to the job in 2009 with the clear intent of repeating his success in Northern Ireland... but resigned in utter failure only last May. Most of Obama's advice on Palestine now seems to stem from another Irish influence in the White House... Samantha Power. After resigning in some disgrace during the 2008 campaign run, she is now on at the NSA as a special expert on foreign affairs. This person also thinks that what worked in Northern Ireland in '98 can work in Palestine now... but no one really knows how.
First off... the Catholic and Protestant clergy of Northern Ireland, to a cleric, denounced violence as "a sin" of the greatest magnitude... while the majority of clerics in Palestine see violence against Israeli authority as a matter of course. Secondly, no "two state" solution would have or could have answered in Northern Ireland... ever... yet, that is the proscribed course to follow in Palestine according to this Administration. Furthermore, no economic revival or "boom" has occured in Palestine yet, the way Ireland (and by extension, Northern Ireland) did in the 90s. Jobless rates in the Republic were at record lows, and the country actually saw (for the first time ever) a decrease in the rate of emmigration and an increase in the rate of immigration. The population of Ireland was actually GROWING... but the population of the Palestinian territories is shrinking (in terms of Muslims, that is... the Israelis within the territories is a growing number, but that is another story).
Seems the author thinks that the Palestinian peace process is less complicated than anyone thought.
Obama has made numerous parallels between the violence in Israel today and the violence in Northern Ireland 20 years ago... so much so that his pick for Special Envoy was none other than George Mitchell, Clinton's former Special Envoy to Northern Ireland during the peace settlement between Ireland, Northern Ireland and the UK.
The Good Friday Accords have been a major success, and things have never been safer or more stable between the two nations since that time. I don't want anyone to think that I am taking away from that peace process... but is the peace process the only factor to consider here?
In 1970-71, 16% of the entire population of Northern Ireland was made up of men between the ages of 15 and 21 years of age. By 1998 (the year the Good Friday Accords were signed), that 16% well into their 40's, with families, jobs and mountains of responsibility (as well as a booming "Celtic Tiger" economy). No one wanted to fight anymore... or very few did. Peace was more profitable than fighting. Even more interestingly, though... the birthrate for Catholics was over 6 kids per family and over 5 kids per Protestant family. By 1995, it was under three for both demographics. The rate of population growth had fallen markedly for both sides, in other words.
Population numbers in Palestine are harder to come by, because it is in the best interest of the PA to keep them inflated to increase foreign aid to the populus... but if the WHO and the Israelis are to be believed, the birthrate is falling far faster than the PA wants to admit. The rate in the 1960s was over 8 kids per family... but now is closer to three, and more and more outsourcing by the Israelis to places like the West Bank for technical jobs is making a growing segment of the Palestinian population increasingly aware of how good life can be with "peace" the norm, rather than the exception.
In fact, if the trend of the last 8 years continues... less than two percent of the Palestinain population will be within that volatile 15-21 year old bracket by 2040 (its at 12% now), and the over-all population will be lower than the 28 million estimated right now (possibly by as much as 8%).
I'm not suggesting older populations can't or won't fight... 1940's America is proof positive that this is not the case... but they are less volatile, and less likely to fight for fighting's sake than a population of teenagers with no jobs and no prospects. Northern Ireland is proof of that.
The sad thing is, Obama must not see this. His pick for Special Envoy to Palestine, George Mitchell, went in to the job in 2009 with the clear intent of repeating his success in Northern Ireland... but resigned in utter failure only last May. Most of Obama's advice on Palestine now seems to stem from another Irish influence in the White House... Samantha Power. After resigning in some disgrace during the 2008 campaign run, she is now on at the NSA as a special expert on foreign affairs. This person also thinks that what worked in Northern Ireland in '98 can work in Palestine now... but no one really knows how.
First off... the Catholic and Protestant clergy of Northern Ireland, to a cleric, denounced violence as "a sin" of the greatest magnitude... while the majority of clerics in Palestine see violence against Israeli authority as a matter of course. Secondly, no "two state" solution would have or could have answered in Northern Ireland... ever... yet, that is the proscribed course to follow in Palestine according to this Administration. Furthermore, no economic revival or "boom" has occured in Palestine yet, the way Ireland (and by extension, Northern Ireland) did in the 90s. Jobless rates in the Republic were at record lows, and the country actually saw (for the first time ever) a decrease in the rate of emmigration and an increase in the rate of immigration. The population of Ireland was actually GROWING... but the population of the Palestinian territories is shrinking (in terms of Muslims, that is... the Israelis within the territories is a growing number, but that is another story).
Friday, June 3, 2011
My one day off...
I've worked eight-straight to get to this day, and I'll work another eight to get my next. One day out of 16, and what do I find?
No new posts from my Bund Brothers, that's for sure.
I'm off to change the liner in the pool, to see if we can get one more season out of that antique setup. At least it is a nice day... sunny, cool, clear and dry. Still, it would have been nice to see a post up that I didn't write myself.
{sigh}
No new posts from my Bund Brothers, that's for sure.
I'm off to change the liner in the pool, to see if we can get one more season out of that antique setup. At least it is a nice day... sunny, cool, clear and dry. Still, it would have been nice to see a post up that I didn't write myself.
{sigh}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
