In the course of history our,military is literally incredible. We can project overwhelming power into any and every corner of the globe for good or ill. If all else fails we can reduce an area to rubble that will glow for five centuries.
Let me bore you for a bit but it's important you know this for this conversation. There are two sides to military power. There is the Tactical. We're pretty damned good at that. We do have some problems with asymmetrical warfare but our Special Forces people are getting better and better at that. One problem we face there is a failure to understand the commitment of our adversaries. If the United States were invaded we would fight to the death and we would encourage our children and grandchildren to do the same. The idea that other peoples love their country any less is just idiotic but it permeates military thinking. That limits our tactical success. The Tactical is battlefield superiority.
Then there is the Strategic. All indications are we just suck at that. The Strategic advances national goals. No member of the Armed forces from the longest serving enlisted man to the highest ranked general has ever been involved in a military campaign that has been a strategic success. That includes Clint Eastwood and Robert Duvall. John Wayne, who never served in the military, did a bang up job with WWII. But if you wanna see something laughable and illustrative watch "The Green Berets". It explains, in great detail, what was wrong with and done wrong in Vietnam. Every strategic, political and social assumption in Vietnam was just completely wrong. "The Green Berets", viewed as a farce, is interesting but in reality Vietnam is a tragedy of misapprehension worthy of Shakespeare that has never been adequately explored in drama. Maybe we would all understand it better had it been.
The idea of an epiphany is powerful and rarely seen acted out in public. President Johnson is the last and maybe the only example of a public epiphany in my life time. He was an amazing man and history treats him more kindly with each passing year, as it should. Johnson went on television and said he would not seek the nomination of his party and would not run. He took a Sherman. He announced a cessation of the bombing of the North Vietnamese and announced our planned participation in the Paris Peace Talks. It was a 180 degree reversal of policy and reversal of his personal assessment of the reality. It was an amazing rejection of 20 years of Cold War assumptions which he had tried to serve.
It's long been assumed McCarthy's victory in New Hampshire changed his mind but the political reality was he would have had the nomination if McCarthy had continued to be strong and he certainly would have beat Nixon. Humphrey proved the establishment was that strong by garnering the nomination and Johnson was a much stronger geographic candidate than Humphrey ever could have been. Bobby Kennedy would have been a different matter but that was short stopped. The people behind Nixon would have murdered him no matter.
There was never an avenue for "victory" in Vietnam. There was never an avenue for "victory" in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria and on and on. Never having been involved would be the recipe for success. The truth is we have occupied Germany and Japan for 70 years and we sure did win those wars. I wonder what that ultimate price tag is? We've occupied Korea for 65 years. How's that working out?
The truth is the only place our goals of establishing a semi-democratic, capitalist based society have been accomplished without intensive occupation is in southeast Asia and we had to totally capitulate, isolate them from our influence and leave. It totally confirms my passive / aggressive approach to life but I digress.
What does it say that the only success has been a result of capitulation? One thing it says loud and clear is, " Asses and elbows outta the Middle East!" Let me see you sell that idea at the Pentagon. There's a sales call that would take some balls to make. Better bring a buncha complimentary steak knives. Wear your best tie.
There's something else in this vein. A lot has been made of setting arbitrary time-tables for withdrawals. It's a lousy strategic idea but all the other ideas are bad. Simply put: We can't stop you from doing stupid things but we can set a time table for you to accomplish some sort of framework for stability after you're forced to give up doing the undoable. It's never been put bluntly that way but it sure should be. Maybe hand them a couple complimentary steak knives.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Off With Their Heads
In our form of government there is often a tension between the will of the majority and simple right and wrong. One area where that is starkly illustrated is the issue of capital punishment. Is it right? Is it wrong? Thankfully, we have the courts for that. I do like it that several governors of both parties, when confronted with being the final agent in the process of ending a life have just refused. I find it disappointing that various legislative members, not realizing their hands are on the switch as well, encourage the blood lust of the mob. They behave as if they don't know you get to go to hell for that. They should know better.
Florida just killed a guy for something he did 29 years ago. Regardless of whether or not he could be rehabilitated he never would have gotten out of jail. He was leaving feet first no matter the agency of his death.
There are all kinds of ancillary arguments about this. My personal favorite is: Society has a right to defend itself. We do. It's persuasive but in these cases what exactly are we defending against? No one convicted of the kind of crimes that would land a person on death row would ever see the light of day in any event. The death penalty has no more deterrent effect than life without parole. That's an established fact. Revenge and justice are two very different things and revenge has no place in our courts.
With that thought in mind, it's easy to see some of the most strident arguments for capital punishment become arguments against. Some of the punishments that are called for would require a person twice as blood thirsty as any murderer the punishments might be used against. Do we really want to hire a psychopath to deal with a criminal? Obviously not. Where would we find someone willing to do some of these things for a government check? Of course, that's extreme and obviously not germane.
In the end, I think these are the adult considerations. Our punishments say much more about us as a society than they ever say about those we punish. History tells us that. We look with horror at the executions practiced by the Romans or the medieval church or the Saracens and on and on. The criminals and the crimes were the same. We judge the societies.
Viewed that way we see we have a responsibility to ourselves in the face of posterity at least, if not in the face of Providence. We face the practical and the divine. Those are very powerful specters. It's always right to remember we are discussing us; you and me and our neighbors working together to take someone's life. In the face of those specters, how complicit do we want to be? How complicit do you want to be? I know I'm out.
Florida just killed a guy for something he did 29 years ago. Regardless of whether or not he could be rehabilitated he never would have gotten out of jail. He was leaving feet first no matter the agency of his death.
There are all kinds of ancillary arguments about this. My personal favorite is: Society has a right to defend itself. We do. It's persuasive but in these cases what exactly are we defending against? No one convicted of the kind of crimes that would land a person on death row would ever see the light of day in any event. The death penalty has no more deterrent effect than life without parole. That's an established fact. Revenge and justice are two very different things and revenge has no place in our courts.
With that thought in mind, it's easy to see some of the most strident arguments for capital punishment become arguments against. Some of the punishments that are called for would require a person twice as blood thirsty as any murderer the punishments might be used against. Do we really want to hire a psychopath to deal with a criminal? Obviously not. Where would we find someone willing to do some of these things for a government check? Of course, that's extreme and obviously not germane.
In the end, I think these are the adult considerations. Our punishments say much more about us as a society than they ever say about those we punish. History tells us that. We look with horror at the executions practiced by the Romans or the medieval church or the Saracens and on and on. The criminals and the crimes were the same. We judge the societies.
Viewed that way we see we have a responsibility to ourselves in the face of posterity at least, if not in the face of Providence. We face the practical and the divine. Those are very powerful specters. It's always right to remember we are discussing us; you and me and our neighbors working together to take someone's life. In the face of those specters, how complicit do we want to be? How complicit do you want to be? I know I'm out.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Oh, Puleese! Just shut up.
I would prefer to use this space for basic concepts rather than current affairs. Obviously, there are times when current affairs and basic concepts forcefully overlap. We are in such "interesting" times. The things we have been seeing over the last several days will be discussed for a generation, perhaps longer and it certainly seems to me to be time for us all to speak up. Forcing everyone to speak up is usually the end to populist / nativist waves. They return to froth on the rocky shore of common sense.
In the end it's a speech issue. Being angry, I started reading about speech and constitutional limits on speech. Looking for loopholes I suppose and I might have found some. I can make a pretty good argument that espousing Nazi ideas and displaying Nazi regalia sure could be illegal. I can make the same argument about Confederate regalia. Both of these things could be said to embody treason. Most people are against treason, as they should be. That's a pretty serious argument to make on an oh so serious subject and boy was I serious. If it hadn't been for the Tiki Torches I might have even stayed convinced and convincing. I'm thinking the proper response to a movement powered by Tiki Torches can only be Citronella Candles.
There are those who would have us believe the objections to the Confederate monuments are based on racism and slave ownership. To a degree that's true but those people do that to justify their own racism. There's no mistaking that. Monuments honoring "heroes" of the Confederacy honor armed, defeated insurrection against the United States of America. Maybe those who support such monuments have lost sight of that. Maybe those who support the public maintenance of such monuments have lost sight of that. We shouldn't lose sight of that and certainly a President should know better. That's how Jefferson got dragged into this. The president doesn't know the difference.
Here's the difference that counts between Lee and Jackson and Washington and Jefferson. Lee and Jackson committed treason against the United States. Washington and Jefferson didn't. However, Jefferson said the remedy for bad speech was more, better speech. The remedy for the pests a Tiki Torch draws in the dark is something as simple as a Citronella Candle.
Here's better speech. Every right we have comes with responsibility. Speech and expression are no different. We have to take responsibility for the validity of what we say. We are liable to correction; sometimes violent correction. Samuel Johnson said, "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth and every other man has a right to knock him down for it." This might be jarring but I don't think it's too violent.
One traitor to the United States glorified is one too many. I don't care if Lee owned the Shroud of Turin, a splinter of the True Cross, the Hope Diamond or slaves. The issue is he was a traitor. Sure he was pardoned. How many statues do we have to Nixon?
Over 400,000 Americans died to defeat the Nazis. We have monuments to their memory and sacrifice in literally every village and town. One Nazi marching openly in the streets of the United States is one too many. It is blindingly inappropriate for a president to not know that. It is incredibly offensive for a president to try to defend such a march. People should be corrected in great detail if they speak as though they don't know that.
Any public expression of racism is one expression too many. The public discourse has recognized and codified that. For a public official to defend any public expression of racism is and should be disqualifying.
The only real issue I see with Confederate monuments is they shouldn't be supported by tax dollars or allowed on public property. Error corrects itself in a free society. Just don't make me pay for it.
We don't need and really can't tolerate laws limiting these expressions of error. We need the public discourse to rise up and correct these affronts to our selves, our country and our liberties. It usually does. The power of our culture is and should be far more fluid and influential than our laws.
Here's the true formulation and we are seeing it play out. The Culture drives the Economy and the Economy drives Politics. Until you know that, it's hard to imagine you would see what's really going on.
In the end it's a speech issue. Being angry, I started reading about speech and constitutional limits on speech. Looking for loopholes I suppose and I might have found some. I can make a pretty good argument that espousing Nazi ideas and displaying Nazi regalia sure could be illegal. I can make the same argument about Confederate regalia. Both of these things could be said to embody treason. Most people are against treason, as they should be. That's a pretty serious argument to make on an oh so serious subject and boy was I serious. If it hadn't been for the Tiki Torches I might have even stayed convinced and convincing. I'm thinking the proper response to a movement powered by Tiki Torches can only be Citronella Candles.
There are those who would have us believe the objections to the Confederate monuments are based on racism and slave ownership. To a degree that's true but those people do that to justify their own racism. There's no mistaking that. Monuments honoring "heroes" of the Confederacy honor armed, defeated insurrection against the United States of America. Maybe those who support such monuments have lost sight of that. Maybe those who support the public maintenance of such monuments have lost sight of that. We shouldn't lose sight of that and certainly a President should know better. That's how Jefferson got dragged into this. The president doesn't know the difference.
Here's the difference that counts between Lee and Jackson and Washington and Jefferson. Lee and Jackson committed treason against the United States. Washington and Jefferson didn't. However, Jefferson said the remedy for bad speech was more, better speech. The remedy for the pests a Tiki Torch draws in the dark is something as simple as a Citronella Candle.
Here's better speech. Every right we have comes with responsibility. Speech and expression are no different. We have to take responsibility for the validity of what we say. We are liable to correction; sometimes violent correction. Samuel Johnson said, "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth and every other man has a right to knock him down for it." This might be jarring but I don't think it's too violent.
One traitor to the United States glorified is one too many. I don't care if Lee owned the Shroud of Turin, a splinter of the True Cross, the Hope Diamond or slaves. The issue is he was a traitor. Sure he was pardoned. How many statues do we have to Nixon?
Over 400,000 Americans died to defeat the Nazis. We have monuments to their memory and sacrifice in literally every village and town. One Nazi marching openly in the streets of the United States is one too many. It is blindingly inappropriate for a president to not know that. It is incredibly offensive for a president to try to defend such a march. People should be corrected in great detail if they speak as though they don't know that.
Any public expression of racism is one expression too many. The public discourse has recognized and codified that. For a public official to defend any public expression of racism is and should be disqualifying.
The only real issue I see with Confederate monuments is they shouldn't be supported by tax dollars or allowed on public property. Error corrects itself in a free society. Just don't make me pay for it.
We don't need and really can't tolerate laws limiting these expressions of error. We need the public discourse to rise up and correct these affronts to our selves, our country and our liberties. It usually does. The power of our culture is and should be far more fluid and influential than our laws.
Here's the true formulation and we are seeing it play out. The Culture drives the Economy and the Economy drives Politics. Until you know that, it's hard to imagine you would see what's really going on.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Time and Integrity
People are all born, high and low, with these two things and only these two things: Time and integrity. It's up to us how we use our time and how we preserve our integrity. I was never told that in so many words. I learned by example. Every day when I was growing up was filled by my elders with an effort at something useful which I was expected, no, allowed, to participate in to the limit of my ability. I was given to understand by those around me that what I would learn to be integrity consisted mainly of doing the right thing even when no one was looking. My voice, my sensibilities, were the real arbiter. The final arbiter. There was no reference to my immortal soul. Just to my self. In this connection I wasn't expected to be anything. Industry and integrity were merely basic conditions of life. I don't think that's unique. As a matter of fact, I think it's the glue that makes our society what it is.
Here's an example: Most fiction doesn't work unless we all share and believe in the basic definitions of honesty. Simple right and wrong. Of course, that means that most people who do wrong, damned sure are aware they're doing evil. Try to follow me here. One question in philosophy has been: Do we all see colors in the same way. Is red, to me, red to you and blue and so on. In the end that answer has to be, yes. They are the same. If they weren't, pastels wouldn't work. It's inescapable that all basic human concepts have to follow that model. At least, I haven't found an exception. I don't think there is any exception to the concepts of right and wrong. I know my kids won't allow me one.
Good for them. In the end, that's the idea isn't it and, in the end, we all do agree on right and wrong. We dissemble when we feel we are wrong and sadly, condescend when we know we are right.
The hard-eyed guys in the red ties are the exception not the rule. Sometimes they are glaring exceptions but they couldn't exist without the froth our time and integrity produce. In the end, some of the things we see as evil are just evidence of our overall good. Sometimes they are just evil. It's an interesting thought that when you embrace a faith in God you must also admit the existence of the Devil. It's pretty much right there in black and white. Read the fine print.
Maybe the world isn't as good and forgiving as I always end up thinking it is but I'm sixty-five years old and to quote an old friend, "I've been everywhere but the electric chair and you ain't showin me nuthin."
I see the time I have been granted as a tremendous gift and given my upbringing, there is no way I can think I've used it to best advantage. Most people of my acquaintance feel exactly that same way. I also hope my integrity isn't in the tatters my kids seem to think. That's pretty cool. I always smile at the pleasure they get from correcting the Old Man and from time to time they have corrected my thought. That's pretty cool. I usually think, ' Yeah, I thought of that' but it's a real pleasure to think, 'Ya know I never thought of it that way.' I guess that's a blessing of maturity. I actually enjoy changing my mind and there is still time.
Here's an example: Most fiction doesn't work unless we all share and believe in the basic definitions of honesty. Simple right and wrong. Of course, that means that most people who do wrong, damned sure are aware they're doing evil. Try to follow me here. One question in philosophy has been: Do we all see colors in the same way. Is red, to me, red to you and blue and so on. In the end that answer has to be, yes. They are the same. If they weren't, pastels wouldn't work. It's inescapable that all basic human concepts have to follow that model. At least, I haven't found an exception. I don't think there is any exception to the concepts of right and wrong. I know my kids won't allow me one.
Good for them. In the end, that's the idea isn't it and, in the end, we all do agree on right and wrong. We dissemble when we feel we are wrong and sadly, condescend when we know we are right.
The hard-eyed guys in the red ties are the exception not the rule. Sometimes they are glaring exceptions but they couldn't exist without the froth our time and integrity produce. In the end, some of the things we see as evil are just evidence of our overall good. Sometimes they are just evil. It's an interesting thought that when you embrace a faith in God you must also admit the existence of the Devil. It's pretty much right there in black and white. Read the fine print.
Maybe the world isn't as good and forgiving as I always end up thinking it is but I'm sixty-five years old and to quote an old friend, "I've been everywhere but the electric chair and you ain't showin me nuthin."
I see the time I have been granted as a tremendous gift and given my upbringing, there is no way I can think I've used it to best advantage. Most people of my acquaintance feel exactly that same way. I also hope my integrity isn't in the tatters my kids seem to think. That's pretty cool. I always smile at the pleasure they get from correcting the Old Man and from time to time they have corrected my thought. That's pretty cool. I usually think, ' Yeah, I thought of that' but it's a real pleasure to think, 'Ya know I never thought of it that way.' I guess that's a blessing of maturity. I actually enjoy changing my mind and there is still time.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
Tell Me, Who Are You !
When I decided to write this I did a lot of research on how much we spend on various things. How much it costs us to accomplish certain things. Is our generosity of spirit cost effective? My research confirmed my thoughts. Hopefully, I won't go to hell for having just that formulation of thought. The more I think about it the more I find it to be shameful and I'm sorry to have ever had such a thought. A cost effective generosity of spirit, Gawd!
I do believe we have a responsibility to limit our generosity thru the government to that which benefits all of us since we expect all of us to pay for it. Charity and the operation of government is and should be two different things. I think how we are known to posterity is a huge component of providing for the general welfare. You may feel, as I do, that how we are known to Providence is a big portion of OUR welfare. What will you say to St Peter? But if you don't feel that way, all of us still have to answer to the future. We have to answer to our children and their children. We owe them a future with simple kindness as a huge component. History has taught us that. We are direct beneficiaries of our parents and their parents knowing that. It's a powerful American Value.
I think you can say both the Germans and the Japanese tried to build world orders that discounted simple human decency and we did beat hell out of them for trying it. We could also say both attempts fell of their own weight but we did beat hell outta them. We kinda killed them for the sake of kindness. There's a thought.
I think it's shameful that we went, in a few short years from making war on poverty to making it fashionable to look askance at the poor. How we abandoned our values to embrace that message is a mystery to me.
I could go on forever but it boils down to this: There are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are proud to contribute to and live in a society that can easily provide for even the most despicable among us and insure to the limits of our abilities their children don't go hungry or go without health care or education or go without the simplest of comforts. Then there are those who those facts just fill with resentment and envy. Which are you? Who are you?
I do believe we have a responsibility to limit our generosity thru the government to that which benefits all of us since we expect all of us to pay for it. Charity and the operation of government is and should be two different things. I think how we are known to posterity is a huge component of providing for the general welfare. You may feel, as I do, that how we are known to Providence is a big portion of OUR welfare. What will you say to St Peter? But if you don't feel that way, all of us still have to answer to the future. We have to answer to our children and their children. We owe them a future with simple kindness as a huge component. History has taught us that. We are direct beneficiaries of our parents and their parents knowing that. It's a powerful American Value.
I think you can say both the Germans and the Japanese tried to build world orders that discounted simple human decency and we did beat hell out of them for trying it. We could also say both attempts fell of their own weight but we did beat hell outta them. We kinda killed them for the sake of kindness. There's a thought.
I think it's shameful that we went, in a few short years from making war on poverty to making it fashionable to look askance at the poor. How we abandoned our values to embrace that message is a mystery to me.
I could go on forever but it boils down to this: There are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are proud to contribute to and live in a society that can easily provide for even the most despicable among us and insure to the limits of our abilities their children don't go hungry or go without health care or education or go without the simplest of comforts. Then there are those who those facts just fill with resentment and envy. Which are you? Who are you?
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Wee Willy Winkie
I have often said I never saw Bill Clinton do anything stupid with his pants up. That's not entirely true but we'll get to that. I do think he gets economic credit he doesn't really deserve, sorta. Clinton and the republicans did negotiate and implement tax and spending policies that set up, briefly, responsible management of spending. They announced, in 1995, their plan would balance the budget by 2002. I thought, at the time it was awfully convenient to set a date for long after they would be out of office. Everyone was surprised when the budget balanced years ahead of schedule. Since I've never seen anyone give a reason for the success I assume they are mystified. The claims of imposed republican fiscal responsibility kind of evaporate when you consider the same basic Congress never batted an eye when G W started writing what would eventually be 13 trillion in hot checks.
It's a collection of elected officials and economists. Of course they're mystified. Watching members of Congress discuss taxation and economic policy is like watching chimps sniff a Rubik's Cube. Some of them have gotten kinda close. They dismiss Clinton's success by saying he rode the tech bubble. Those are guys who think the economy stops at the end of Wall Street. It's no real surprise they generate nothing of value.
What happened was we bought a bunch of new stuff that we had never needed before. We bought VCR's, cell phones and PC's mainly. It was a whole new class of mid level, pervasive consumer purchases of totally new durable goods. On top of that the Boomers were working out from under the twin body blows of the energy "crisis" and Reaganomics and coming into their economic prime. Here's a practical illustration of what happened. In 1970, a standard home electrical panel was 60 amps or sometimes just a little more. By 2000 a standard, residential service panel was 150 amps and now it's 200. That's basic consumption of an underlying resource.
It took some real doin to put a crimp in that surge. Here's a question: How the hell do you wage two wars and crash the economy at the same time? The obvious answer is you let a bunch of guys like Dick Cheney and Ken Lay steal everything that isn't nailed down. You let it be known open season has been declared on the financial markets. The term "obvious" bares repeating. In order to obscure the obvious you need a blizzard of crap. That's where Willie's Winky comes in.
Let's look at 1984. Gary Hart was having some "Monkey Business" with Donna Rice. I think he was taken by surprise that the republicans broke the old boy's code and he reacted badly which drug the whole thing out and effectively ended his national career. It was a different era but had I been him I'da stuffed the girl in a bikini, called a press conference and said, " What would you do?"
Clinton danced around a lot and basically ended up at exactly that same place and got away with it. Middle-aged men in responsible positions have been chasing young girls forever. I thought Hart and Clinton were totally pedestrian. Trump, who actually is kinda creepy, just shrugged it off. In a way he did a public service. We probably won't see that nonsense as a campaign tactic for a while. I don't care if you like screwin goats. Don't do it on the White House lawn and don't write hot checks.
Here's what I think Clinton did wrong. (Beyond the obvious.) He never should have cooperated with the Paula Jones deposition. Having made that mistake he should have just shut up. Instead he got into playing lawyer with these guys. Each deposition has it's own list of definitions for terms key to the specific suit. These guys over-thought everything, so much so that Clinton joked about the definition of the word "is". I imagine that was a result of mediocre guys finding themselves in circumstances well above their pay grade. It's a symptom of self-perceived inadequacy. The joke on the word "is" was kind of a nuggy. Sort of a ruffling the hair of an over officious inferior.
Clinton noticed and may even have manipulated these guys into a definition of the term "sexual relations", "sex" that didn't include fellatio. (Eatin ain't cheatin?) I can't imagine what kind of fun these guys might have had in college but I'm thinking it couldn't have been much. When you think about it, they almost certainly weren't gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just sayin.
Clinton's mistake was making a statement in public that technically wasn't a lie under the definitions but was an obvious lie to just about anyone who wasn't a lawyer. The republicans went wild and the loyalists shook their heads and said, " Oh Geez."
Pants zipped? Pretty smart. Pants unzipped? Not so much. Kinda a cross section of the American public.
It's a collection of elected officials and economists. Of course they're mystified. Watching members of Congress discuss taxation and economic policy is like watching chimps sniff a Rubik's Cube. Some of them have gotten kinda close. They dismiss Clinton's success by saying he rode the tech bubble. Those are guys who think the economy stops at the end of Wall Street. It's no real surprise they generate nothing of value.
What happened was we bought a bunch of new stuff that we had never needed before. We bought VCR's, cell phones and PC's mainly. It was a whole new class of mid level, pervasive consumer purchases of totally new durable goods. On top of that the Boomers were working out from under the twin body blows of the energy "crisis" and Reaganomics and coming into their economic prime. Here's a practical illustration of what happened. In 1970, a standard home electrical panel was 60 amps or sometimes just a little more. By 2000 a standard, residential service panel was 150 amps and now it's 200. That's basic consumption of an underlying resource.
It took some real doin to put a crimp in that surge. Here's a question: How the hell do you wage two wars and crash the economy at the same time? The obvious answer is you let a bunch of guys like Dick Cheney and Ken Lay steal everything that isn't nailed down. You let it be known open season has been declared on the financial markets. The term "obvious" bares repeating. In order to obscure the obvious you need a blizzard of crap. That's where Willie's Winky comes in.
Let's look at 1984. Gary Hart was having some "Monkey Business" with Donna Rice. I think he was taken by surprise that the republicans broke the old boy's code and he reacted badly which drug the whole thing out and effectively ended his national career. It was a different era but had I been him I'da stuffed the girl in a bikini, called a press conference and said, " What would you do?"
Clinton danced around a lot and basically ended up at exactly that same place and got away with it. Middle-aged men in responsible positions have been chasing young girls forever. I thought Hart and Clinton were totally pedestrian. Trump, who actually is kinda creepy, just shrugged it off. In a way he did a public service. We probably won't see that nonsense as a campaign tactic for a while. I don't care if you like screwin goats. Don't do it on the White House lawn and don't write hot checks.
Here's what I think Clinton did wrong. (Beyond the obvious.) He never should have cooperated with the Paula Jones deposition. Having made that mistake he should have just shut up. Instead he got into playing lawyer with these guys. Each deposition has it's own list of definitions for terms key to the specific suit. These guys over-thought everything, so much so that Clinton joked about the definition of the word "is". I imagine that was a result of mediocre guys finding themselves in circumstances well above their pay grade. It's a symptom of self-perceived inadequacy. The joke on the word "is" was kind of a nuggy. Sort of a ruffling the hair of an over officious inferior.
Clinton noticed and may even have manipulated these guys into a definition of the term "sexual relations", "sex" that didn't include fellatio. (Eatin ain't cheatin?) I can't imagine what kind of fun these guys might have had in college but I'm thinking it couldn't have been much. When you think about it, they almost certainly weren't gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just sayin.
Clinton's mistake was making a statement in public that technically wasn't a lie under the definitions but was an obvious lie to just about anyone who wasn't a lawyer. The republicans went wild and the loyalists shook their heads and said, " Oh Geez."
Pants zipped? Pretty smart. Pants unzipped? Not so much. Kinda a cross section of the American public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)