I thought the post about the many, many thousands of sanctions-caused civilian deaths in Iraq was RIGHT ON. The bombing makes some of you decide to favor impeachment, just for the pleasure of seeing Billy suffer. Until now, in judging the First Jerk, it seems that the welfare reform disaster, health-reform betrayal, previous military attacks on Iraq and Sudan, even the civil rights setbacks he has been responsible for, all these could not overcome the discomfort over the way in which Starr collected semen stains, or looked for bookstore billing records. Was I having a pleasant dream, or did Amnesty I. actually cite the United States this year for HUMAN RIGHT ABUSES? Who is the "chief executive" in charge of the systematic abuse of human rights in this country?
It reminds of a piece of business Dick Gregory used to do: (paraphrasing) I hear brothers talking about how BAD Reagan is, and how BAD people have it now because of Reagan. Suddenly, like everything was just peach-keen before Reagan.
Maybe people respond to the impeachment according to their experience in life. Who feels such overwhelming sensitivity about the privacy rights of the powerful, so much so that they come out in defense of the very people who preside over and administer a system that excels in the violation of privacy, and a hundred other civil rights besides? I can only explain it by saying that people defend him because they identify with him. And a sense of personal identity is greater than any merely academic or ideological contrivance.
I can't believe how so many leaders in the women's movement for example have squandered their political capital defending such a two-bit lothario. Can it be that my own experience in the workplace gives me greater insight into this question than, say Patricia Ireland? I mean, I have literally seen women raped in the workplace, and I've seen them take it with absolutely no visible complaint in order to keep their jobs. Where I worked, rape was called consensual sex. How does one distinguish between the two when a woman needs a job? I mean, nobody even denies that Monica herself was on the make for a better job. Hey, did the "girls" who didn't suck the big one get an interview with the Ambassador to the UN? Whose civil rights are REALLY being fucked here?
One reason our nation functions politically under an all-enveloping cloud of mendacity is that it is so hard to prove an intentional lie, and when you do, the response of the justice system depends on the nature of the lie. If the lie serves power and wealth, of course, it is rarely prosecuted. Now, for a million reasons including chance, one of the really big Crackers is caught in the act, and half the progressive left wants to have a demo in his defense. At last, someone's been caught, and you want to let him go. I just don't get it. Daniel