Denis Sullivan says:
> ... let me be blunt.
Yes, let's.
> The Clinton decision .... Did he crack because of constant
> political/media harassment over his minor sex- ...?
Yes and no. First: Did he crack? No, he retaliated.
Retaliated against the incidious and incessant baiting and bullying
of his detractors, yes it is political, yes it is mob media.
No, the harassment wasn't sexicism-centered, (although those
same detractors' envy to be gettin' some is patently obvious).
The harassment has been subversive catcalls mewing that Clinton
had not so he would not stand up in Somalia, stand up in Haiti,
stand up in North Korea, stand up in Bosnia, stand up in Palisraelstine,
stand up in Guatemala, stand up in Belfast, stand up in Rio,
stand up in Kyoto, stand up in Pakistindia, stand up in Columbia,
would you in Peru?, stand up in RwandaBurundiUganda,
stand up in Turkey make Algeria fear ya', stand up to a
government shut down.
So after the Lewdinsky dumbpeachment cleared the
national colon, the first time some damn dimwit dared him
to do something about Belgrade's swaggersticker, Clinton
relented. Throughout his term, I imagine the DoD's
fight-pickers and war-makers have laid a hundred assault
options on his desk for every one he's acceded to.
Not that Clinton is any paragon of propriety. Indeed,
there must be criticism and correction of the belligerents
bureaucratically bunkered in the state psyche without it being
any defense of Clinton. He's bad, but there's time for that
later. Preemptive priority goes to the arms makers and dealers.
Arrest them.
What must be addressed before it betrays freedom further,
is that which has developed from allowing Rash Lamebrain
to bray on his radio programming the first day after the 1992
election: "Bill Clinton does not deserve to be President.
Someone ought to just go shoot -- oh, nevermind. I could
get in trouble for what I'm thinking." And has continued
through Lamebrain: goading Gingrich's Newtzies to extremes;
fertilizing Timothy McVeigh's seedy brain with Waco-wacky;
racing up some church burning God churning neck dragging
chain clanking; calling on Laramie and All -- "across the fruited
plain" -- "won't someone rid me of the Barney Frank's of the world;"
right up to and including coordinated synagogue arsons in Rash's
"adopted hometown -- Sacramento" to show that "nothing was
settled in Kosovo, this is not a win for Clinton."
That is what we put up with because we haven't shut down
Rash Lamebrain and his sound-alikes, who are all and only
the reincarnations of Tokyo Rose, Joseph Goebbels, and
Hanoi Hannah.
Until we sanction the commercial sponsors -- McDonald's,
Snapple, Oreck, Dodge, Toyota, Bose, Ruth's Chris', etc. --
of politicstalk radio, we'll be the bagged politic they stalk.
Call the call-in's, call the pundittocrats, have your people
call Rupert's people, call them to the phone, call them on it, and
literally blow a shrill referee's whistle in their telephonic ear.
> I've derived some stimulating amusement ...
(see below)
> ... from the semantic battle between Martin,Bill etc.
> over terms like "socialism", "anarcho-syndicalism" etc.
> There is wide-spread misuse of these words ...
Who writes the dictionary frames the debate.
To which I've applied my most reaching efforts of conclusion.
Arriving at this, the definitions of "leftism" and "rightism":
Leftism is the thought process of the right brain.
Rightism is the thought process of the left brain.
Political perceptions are hard wired in neuroanatomy.
The left hemisphere performs to deduce the specific from
experienced sensory continuum. That is: What's in it for me?
What is the point? What's my (or others') self interest?
There is obvious survival advantage in looking out for number 1.
The right hemisphere evolved to apperceive survival-enhancements
in and of one's group, such as stronger progeny from
procreative partners outside one's family. Where "family"
in its members and concept is not visibly, tangibly apparent.
Right hemisphere performs to induce category, type, and
generality from experiential instance. That is: Who's on
my side? Friend or foe? What's in the collective interest?
(This is not the same as altruism, necessarily.)
And the Third Way, the new and next politics, is balancing
the faculties we each have -- everyone incorporates both the
liberal and the conservative understandings, points of view.
Statecraft resumes being the guided progress respecting
both sensibilities in people: Self-interest and team-interest.
Notice how political concerns change with scale: Where
the self is a state and the collective is the United States,
concern for the former is "conservative" and concern for
the latter is "liberal."
Where the self is the United States and the collective is the
United Nations, now concern for the U.S. is deemed "conservative"
and concern for the UN, or the global Earth, is called "liberal."
And if ever Earth joins a planetary confederacy, suddenly
Earth-huggers will be called "conservative" and planetary
universalists will be dubbed "liberal."
(Another new consideration for millennial politics should be
this debate: Proposed: That world peace be ordained and
maintained by offering all high resolution spy satellite imagery
on the internet, free and open, providing every paranoid
anywhere with the channel to keep an eye on their neighbor's
sovereignty to see if troops are massing across the border.)
Well, I forget the other point I planned to introduce. Let it be.
As for stimulation and amusement, I find yours is neither,
Martin William Smith. Please do not comment or respond
to my posting(s), nor to ensuing threads as it (they) may unravel.
|
