Topic: White Water


Los Angeles Times
January 3, 1999 NEAL GABLER


In a battle of absolutists versus relativists--the president's attackers versus his defenders--no prisoners will be taken. 

AMAGANSETT, N.Y.--No doubt, years from now, when historians look back at 1998, they will regard it as the year of Monica: the year when scandal engulfed Bill Clinton's presidency and preoccupied the political process. They will almost certainly fasten on the bitter partisanship, on the war between the Republican right and the Democratic center and on the disconnect between those inside the Washington Beltway, who scream for the president's scalp, and ordinary folks outside the Beltway, who wish the whole mess would disappear. 

But the partisan bickering has obscured a far larger and more culturally significant battle, for which Clinton's misbehavior may have only served as an occasion. Indeed, in 1868, the ostensible reason for President Andrew Johnson's impeachment was his firing of the secretary of war in violation of Congress' instructions. The real issue, however, was his disregard for Reconstruction in the post-Civil War South. In 1999, the ostensible reason for President Bill Clinton's impeachment is alleged perjury and obstruction of justice. The real issue, however, may be his embrace of deconstruction in modern America. 

For decades, the theory of deconstruction has enjoyed a vogue in academe. It originated in linguistics, where, to oversimplify, it posited the none-too-radical idea that language was a function of shared meaning. In this view, a word had no objective meaning; it could only mean something because people agreed on its meaning. Language was a collaboration between, or construction of, everyone who spoke and everyone who listened. 

From linguistics, however, deconstruction passed into textual interpretation, where the results were more problematic. Here, the idea was that a text--say, a novel--had no set meaning; it, too, was a collaboration between the writer and the reader, rendering the latter every bit as important as the former and turning books themselves into a product of culture rather than the product of an individual sensibility. Thus one could "deconstruct" the text to determine not what the author had put there but how we had all erected it. 

If deconstruction had confined itself to English departments, it might have served as just another analytical tool. But deconstructionists were rabid partisans who realized their theory had grave implications not just for literature but for the very notion of reality. If nothing was objective, if everything was a matter of collaboration, then the entire world was subjective. At best, people agreed on conventions that enabled us to communicate, but these were conveniences or myths, not all that different from Greek myths, and no more factual. 

So the idea of deconstruction wiggled into the general culture, where subjectivity now often trumped objectivity. In some respects, the O.J. Simpson criminal verdict was deconstruction's coming-out party. To those who thought Simpson clearly guilty, the evidence provided objective proof that he had committed the murders: the bloody glove, the DNA analysis. On the other hand, to those who found Simpson innocent, this so-called proof was a collaboration between the L.A. Police Department and white Americans to provide a "text" in which Simpson would seem guilty. In other words, there was no one objective truth; there were only different versions of the truth. 

What does all of this have to do with Clinton and Monica S. Lewinsky? It may have everything to do with them. When Clinton was accused of taking refuge in narrow legalisms to save his skin, he was really taking refuge in a deconstructionist view of reality. There was, he insisted, no single definition of sexual relations. Rather, there was a series of definitions, which made the whole idea of sexual relations completely subjective. Clinton's definition was just as good as anyone else's. 

Similarly, when Clinton claimed that he and Lewinsky were never alone, he was deconstructing the world "alone." No one in the White House is ever really alone, he could have argued. There are always Secret Service agents and other officials about. Indeed, the president is at the center of a vast nexus of individuals, meaning that whenever he is alone with someone, he is alone only in a manner of speaking. If this sounds like sophistry, it may be, but it is also deconstruction. 

It should be apparent that if this theory has grave implications for reality, it has equally serious consequences for morality, certainly according to the GOP. When reality itself is a subjective construct, morality is also relative. There is no moral authority in the sky, no moral absolutes. This struck close to home when a deconstructionist pioneer, Yale Professor Paul de Man, was discovered to have written anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi articles during World War II. And it is basically the argument that Republicans have aimed at Clinton. They claim that the president is a moral relativist for whom morality means whatever he wants it to mean. 

The House Republicans may not have realized they were entering into the deconstruction debate. They seemed to think they were engaged in a campaign to rid the country of a man they regard as an immoral leader. But in the longer view, the Clinton scandal not only raised the issue of deconstruction; it was the latest and fiercest battle in what we may now recognize as a long cultural civil war, the sides of which the two major parties have come to symbolize. 

On one side are the Republicans, most of whom seem to believe in an objective reality and an absolute morality. Though it may sound drastic to say, if they often seem to act like the mullahs of Iran, it is because they think like those mullahs. For them, every issue seems to resolve itself into black and white, wrong and right. Homosexuality is a sin against nature. Abortion is murder because life begins at the moment of conception. Not telling the full truth before a legal tribunal is a crime no matter what the circumstances. 

As we saw during the House debate on the articles of impeachment, there could be no argument because there was no give, no tolerance. Just ask former House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.). One toe over the line was like the whole body over the line. Mullahs reportedly chopped off hands for thievery, however petty. The GOP mullahs, invoking some form of constitutional fundamentalism, tried to chop off Clinton's presidency, however petty his offenses. 

That is why those who accuse the Republicans of having politicized impeachment may have it all wrong. What they did in voting the articles of impeachment was political in neither the textbook sense, by which one meant the process of resolving competing interests, nor in the colloquial sense, by which one may have been partisan. They were no more interested in the political process than late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had been. As absolutists, they were fixated on extirpating deconstructionist morality for which Clinton was the poster child, the same way that the ayatollah was fixated on extirpating satanic Western influences in Iran. Theirs was a holy war. 

Meanwhile, across the battle lines are the Democrats, most of whom seem to believe in a subjective reality and a moral spectrum. If they seem to act like a bunch of aging hippies, it is because they think like a bunch of aging hippies. For them, every issue seems to resolve itself into grays, into provisional rights and provisional wrongs. Homosexuality isn't a sin but just another sexual preference or lifestyle. Abortion isn't murder but a decision that every woman should have the right to make for herself. And not telling the full truth in a court of law isn't necessarily perjury; it all depends on the circumstances. Theirs is no holy war. It is a gigantic therapy session in which everyone is allowed, in 1960s rhetoric, to do his or her own thing. 

The battle between Republicans and Democrats, and between Clinton's attackers and his defenders, is really a battle of one truth versus many truths, of fanatics versus relativists, of moral absolutism versus moral fuzziness, of an essentially religious view of politics versus a secular view of politics. 

This is why the struggle will continue long after Clinton's fate has been decided by the Senate. This civil war isn't really about who gains office and what policies are promulgated, which is why the Republicans don't seem to mind that the public now reviles them. This civil war is about the belief in an objective reality and an implacable moral system. One suspects we will see people fall on their swords before they give up that fight. 

Not for commercial use. Solely to be used for the educational purposes of research and open discussion.

Somebody gets it.

Posted by: Nick Danger (nickdanger@null.net) *
01/03/99 07:59:04 PST

To: Nick Danger
Neal Gabler? I know that name, but can't place him. Can you contextualize (ooOOOoooh) him for me, Nick? Someone? —Dan
From: BibChr (bibchr@jps.net) *
01/03/99 08:02:51 PST

To: Nick Danger
Yes, someone apparently does get it. Depending of course of the meaning of "it" (old joke already I know).
From: thoughtomator (notbymydefinitionofemail@wh.gov) *
01/03/99 08:08:16 PST

To: Nick Danger
Exactly! Never have the lines between good and evil been more clearly drawn. And it's fascinating to watch the combatants declare their allegiance..

Sometimes, it seems we are back in the Garden of Eden. Carvile has handed Boy-Toy Trent the apple. Trent eyes it up: it smells good, it looks good -- and, boy, pres perv sure does have a nice butt ... Stay tuned!
From: clews (clews@cct.infi.net) *
01/03/99 08:08:21 PST

To: BibChr

Neal Gabler used to do movie reviews on TV with Jeffrey Lyons.

From: Billorites (JhengisKhan@hotmail.com) *
01/03/99 08:16:36 PST

To: Nick Danger
"absolutists vs relativists"

really...more like constitutionalists vs anti-constitutionalists.
From: evad (evad) *
01/03/99 08:20:12 PST

To: Nick Danger
Sadly, but it is all so true.

I actually worked in a group were failing to solve a problem was just another way of dealing with it, not necessarily wrong. And if one found a method of actually solving the problem, or solving it faster, there was no reason to rejoice or to spread the news - you guessed it, it was one's way of dealing with it, not necessarily a better way.

I finally quit after one of my co-workers incompetently lost the company big $$ by buying equipment at prices way above the market - it was her way of selecting the lowest bidder.

Almost needless to say, she was later promoted.

Neddless to say, there were indeed aging hippies in control there. It looks like wherever they manage to achieve critical mass, they take control and then they stick together and do everything in their power to relativise whatever segment of reality happens to be under their control.

From: A Vast RightWing Conspirator (avrwc@hotmail.com) *
01/03/99 08:21:38 PST

To: Nick Danger
"Theirs is no holy war. It is a gigantic therapy session in which everyone is allowed, in 1960s rhetoric, to do his or her own thing."

Excuse me?...

OF COURSE the liberals are fighting a "holy war". The pseudo-religious fanaticism which they display toward situational ethics, "tolerance", "inclusiveness", etc...shows that they are on a jihad.

The culture war is a holy war--for both sides. So far, the leftist have been winning.

From: boris (jfglass@mindspring.com) *
01/03/99 08:22:43 PST

To: boris
The writer seems to need to black and white the issues himself.
From: global warning (emailname) *
01/03/99 08:25:01 PST

To: Nick Danger
I'm not totally comfortable with the comparisons between Islamic fundamentalists and Republicans. In fact, I'm not sure Republicans are all so totally religion-driven. For example, homosexuality could be discouraged simply on the basis of it being against a vague 'natural order of things' - arguments against it are not necessarily Bible-based. Also, many Republicans now favor decriminalization of drugs, even though their use is immoral.
From: Anthony Bruni () *
01/03/99 08:33:56 PST

To: global warning
...on the war between the Republican right and the Democratic center...

Ummm...excuse me? Could you be just a wee bit MORE partisan, sir? We can't really tell where you stand, otherwise...
From: Son of Liberty (TheGreen@Lexington.MA) *
01/03/99 08:35:58 PST

To: Nick Danger
.....the war between the Republican right and the Democratic center...

I almost quit reading there, but I didn't

Moral relativism has been the driving theme of our popular culture since the 70's. Today's polls reflect the success of the "aging hippies" who hijacked the education system (beginning with the universities and colleges), the entertainment industry, and the news media.

The left (not the center) portrays moral absolutists as Neandrathals - reduced to huddling in our caves awaiting the inevitable. And, because the left controls the means of "cultural production", the great unwashed center contunues to buy into this idea.

The Silent Majority has been marginalized to a shrinking minority, and I fear it will take cataclysmic events to reverse the trend.

From: Leroy S. Mort () *
01/03/99 08:39:45 PST

To: Nick Danger
We can take offense that the writer has expressed a bias about the conflict -- referring to the "Republican right" vs the "Democratic center" and ascribing "mullah-hood" to only one side.

But the writer has also "deconstructed" the nature of the conflict -- absolutism vs relativism -- with great perception.

Strange to say, but he could have couched it as "tolerance vs intolerance" just as easily. It seems to me that there is far more tolerance for "sinning" coming from the right than there is tolerance for "dissent" (or "judgmentalism") coming from the left.
From: okie01 () *
01/03/99 08:44:44 PST

To: evad
"Constitutionalists vs anti-constitutionalists"

I, too, find it incredible that so many are agreeing with the gist of this article. I don't oppose this president on moral grounds, and I suspect there are bunches like me.

I oppose this president on LEGAL grounds, CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.

I personally don't care who he's been banging, or what. I do care that he testify truthfully and that he refrain from encouraging others to testify untruthfully. I care whether he obstructs justice and the rule of law.

While the moral argument is an appealing one, each of us must remember no matter how vile this man is the only basis for impeachment and removal lies on legal ground. When we pick up the banner of morality, in this narrow context, we blur the legal issue for those who have no definite morality. And those who have no definite morality are certainly the majority.
From: Mariner (stsmith@mcione.com) *
01/03/99 08:46:31 PST

To: BibChr
He's written at least two books on the history of hollywood and Walter Winchell-

An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented Hollywood Paperback , • Winchell : Gossip, Power and the Culture of Celebrity
From: ptrlaw (ptrlaw@exis.net) *
01/03/99 08:56:06 PST

To: Nick Danger
Excellent, I saved this, thanks. I had to reply before I even finished it. The insight here is stunning to me. This is at the very root of "political correctness" in this nation. To assault the very bedrock of civilization, our very own language is the very shadow of treason, it is the reasoning of the leftist. The very thing that makes "God" feasible is our understanding of language, which we begin to learn at a very early age. The very notion of "God" demands an absolute. The ten commandments are an absolute, something the left abhors. I think this article has broken things down to the very roots of our partisan and ethical dillema. Just what is the definition of "good" and "evil"? Vince.
From: vmatt (vmatt@bellsouth.net) *
01/03/99 09:03:27 PST

To: Nick Danger
Somebody gets it.

Yes, but not this guy. He realizes that we are in a war for the morals of America, but he believes with all his heart and soul (which he no doubt denies exists) that we conservatives are on the wrong side. Look at how he says that this is a battle between the "Republican right & the Democatic center". Look how he compares us with Islamic fundamentalist.

This guy no more "get's it" than Bill Clinton or Trent Lott.

P.S.: Do any of you try to spell Lott's name "Loot" too? Is there some significance in that?
From: Rule of Law (cbc3@mindspring.com) *
01/03/99 09:12:40 PST

To: Mariner
Mariner, you are right on!!!!

In 1999, the ostensible reason for President Bill Clinton's impeachment is alleged perjury and obstruction of justice. The real issue, however, may be his embrace of deconstruction in modern America.

In other words, when we say it's not the sex, it's the perjury and obstruction of justice, stupid, we're just a bunch of liars. Mr. Gabler, liberal mind-reader that he is, KNOWS the REAL REASON we wish Clinton to be removed from office.

Sorry Nick, he doesn't get it at all. Unless he speaks for you, but he certainly doesn't speak to MY reasoning.
From: Shethink13 (emailname) *
01/03/99 09:12:55 PST

To: Nick Danger
Clinton was deconstructing "alone" is was deconstructing "is". If those moral absolutist Republicans sounded like Mullahs, note Gabler did not provide an example, why can't Gabler make the connection that Clinton sounds like a con man?

Deconstructionists Unite!! You have only your meanings to lose!!
From: kermit (ml3127@power-net.net) *
01/03/99 09:23:44 PST

To: boris
I agree. It is a holy war for the left. It is why they refuse to look at the facts and why they get so hysterical ala Maxine Waters, Robert Wexler, etc.
From: SuzyQ (kingofthehill@worldnet.att.net) *
01/03/99 09:27:06 PST

To: Shethink13
It seems that some here can't for one second leave the realm of framing everything in politics, read between the lines and recognize pure genious. You seem to break every comment down small enough to find some little fragment that may not fit your ideology. I would question weather you ever find anything good in any posting that at some point departs from your own understanding of the issues. Are you all self flaggelating yourself with censorship? Vince.
From: vmatt (vmatt@bellsouth.net) *
01/03/99 09:27:30 PST

To: Leroy S. Mort
"The Silent Majority has been marginalized to a shrinking minority, and I fear it will take cataclysmic events to reverse the trend."

Mort, good to see you posting. I agree with your assessment of the article and like you I have great fear that mirrors your conclusion. An absolutist Neanderthals can only get backed so far into his cave before he comes out swinging.

I am afraid. Very afraid for the future of our Nation. It seems to be a loosing battle for me to merely accept that my fears are relative to my particular place in "life's process". I want to believe that Grandfathers throughout the ages all had similar concerns for the well being of their offspring and yet .....

I am humbled into once again accepting an age old conclusion ...

"Our Father ... Thy will be done!"

Greg Adams

From: ImpBill () *
01/03/99 09:33:44 PST

To: Nick Danger
"...those inside the Washington Beltway, who scream for the president's scalp, and ordinary folks outside the Beltway, who wish the whole mess would disappear...."

There is an almost infinitely larger number of people outside the Beltway who are screaming for Clinton's scalp than there is inside the Beltway....
From: A Whitewater Researcher (awhitewatrrsrchr@hotmail.com) *
01/03/99 09:40:07 PST

To: Nick Danger
I just read the entire thread before replying, though I was tempted to just jump right in. Yes, this write DOES get IT - IF *it* is deconstruction. He is exactly right about how both sides view the truth, even if he WAS a little heavy-handed in his use of an Iranian mullah analogy.

But, what he most definitely does NOT get - and none of these columnists seem to get, either - is that the GOP is most doggedly pursuing Crinton on these charges because all his multitudinous OTHER, far MORE serious crimes, have been committed in such a mob-like slippery manner that this is all we can, with 100% certainty, PROVE he did. I hate to invoke the Al Capone simile again, but that's how they nailed him - and it's the exact same thing working here today - this is the easiest way to prove a felony without getting out in the open a lot of troublesome, complicated other dirt held together by tenuous, spidery underground connections.

Show me one columnist who gets THAT!


From: Wright is right! (voe@voicex.com) *
01/03/99 09:45:59 PST

To: Nick Danger
Shouldn't the title be the Deconstruction of Clinton?
From: global warning (emailname) *
01/03/99 10:08:14 PST

To: Wright is right!
[because all his multitudinous OTHER, far MORE serious crimes, have been committed in such a mob-like slippery manner that this is all we can, with 100% certainty, PROVE he did.]

As usual, Michael, you have cut to the chase.

Also, these tolerant deconstructionists are very liquid on their views of truth but absolute on those with which they disagree.

From: Mind-numbed Robot (lc123@swbell.net) *
01/03/99 10:51:45 PST

To: Nick Danger
Great post! You're right, someone gets it.
From: tsister () *
01/03/99 11:01:00 PST

To: Mariner
This is the issue that this article is trying to point out.. We may no longer rely on the legal grounds nor the constitutional grounds to not be subject to extreme interpretation based on one's political bend....now is the time for the Republicans to recognize that just as "is " and "alone" can have a myriad of interpretations...so to can "perjury" , "lying" and "obstruction of justice"...
From: ordinaryhousewife (john123@fls.infi.net) *
01/03/99 11:20:45 PST

To: Mariner

You are correct, of course. However, If we get rid of
him legally, and do not follow up by continuing to expose
his lack of morality, then we have accomplished very little.
As unbelievalbe as it is, Algore is thought to be a moral
person, yet he is a liberal and believes in liberal "causes"
It is true that Bill Clinton is an evil man, or a well-
meaning man with evil ways (same results) but, the most
evil of his ways are not the news stories of the last six
years, but, rather his basic political philosophy. Pretend
for a moment that all his scandals of the last six years
did not exist and all we had against him was his "agenda".
I maintain, that "agenda" is the most frightening evil
about this administration. If we do not continue to dis-
> credit, debunk, de-indoctrinate and destroy the acceptance
of liberalism as just another political opinion, instead
of the fundamental evil and immoral philosophy that it is
then we are in much more danger that before. Imagine a
person coming along who has Bill Clinton's political beliefs
and political skills but not the "alleycat-ism" that
threatens him now. That's scary. Let's get him out legally
but, the battle over his "reprehensible" soul continues.
From: Eagle'sClaw (emailname) *
01/03/99 11:36:30 PST

To: boris
The word "tolerance" is a perfect example of deconstruction for the purpose of changing a belief system. Webster's Dict., 1913 defines tolerance as "The power or capacity of enduring; the act of enduring; endurance," and furthermore as "The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration"
The Webster's 1996 definition of tolerance is "a fair and permissive attitude towards those who's race, religion, beliefs, etc., differ from one's own"

Endurance of that with which we disagree was once a prerequisite for tolerance. Now, we must not only be fair, but permissive as well. It was the aspect of endurance that made tolerance a virture. With the absense of that qualification, tolerance is no longer a virture. Instead, it is an absolution of permissive behavior and a negation of the right to make judgements based upon one's own ethical/moral values.
From: tsister () *
01/03/99 11:41:08 PST

To: global warning
Shouldn't the title be the Deconstruction of Clinton?

I'll bet that was the author's title. Some editor at the L.A. Times probably helped him spell it kurrekly.

From: Nick Danger (nickdanger@null.net) *
01/03/99 12:12:50 PST

To: Nick Danger
I say, let the next civil war begin. It's high time.
From: Mr. Roberts (cwroberts@pdq.net) *
01/03/99 12:15:23 PST

To: Nick Danger
Well, we have an objective jail cell waiting for objective Resident Clinton, who objectifies women, where he can objectively determine for himself whether he is being objectively punished for his objective lying under oath and his objective obstruction of objective justice, or just subjectively imagining it all.

From: Cultural Jihad () *
01/03/99 12:21:01 PST

To: vmatt
It seems that some here can't for one second leave the realm of framing everything in politics, read between the lines and recognize pure genious. You seem to break every comment down small enough to find some little fragment that may not fit your ideology. I would question weather you ever find anything good in any posting that at some point departs from your own understanding of the issues. Are you all self flaggelating yourself with censorship? Vince.

Dear Vince: Huh? Sorry, this reply makes absolutely no sense. Maybe you replied to me by mistake, or is Nick Gabler your brother of something that you see such genius that I obviously miss. If someone else could clue me in to what Vince is talking about, perhaps I could come up with a witty and clever response.

And one last thing - the word "weather" refers to the climate. I think the word you are looking for is "whether" - I know it's a little confusing since they both are pronounced the same.
From: Shethink13 (emailname) *
01/03/99 12:24:10 PST

To: Shethink13
Pardon me. It is Neal Gabler, not Nick Gabler.
From: Shethink13 (emailname) *
01/03/99 12:28:40 PST

To: Shethink13
That would be Neal Gabler, not Nick.
From: Shethink13 (emailname) *
01/03/99 12:29:58 PST

To: Leroy S. Mort
They will almost certainly fasten on the bitter partisanship, on the war between the Republican right and the Democratic center I agree Mr. Mort. What partisan rhetoric! The only reason that I force myself to read this tripe is so I can read the dispatches of the enemy. That is how McClellan almost got Billy Lee at Antietam, by intercepting enemy dipatches (ironically rolled up in a CIGAR package.

If Mr. Neal Babler expects that this misunderstanding between the left and right might someday end in conflict, I say BRING IT ON, Mr. Babler.

I am one of the few Americans who realizes that our enemy is not Russia, China or North Korea (as our Vietnam vets would have you believe). It is American liberals, specifically the worst kind - white liberal males.
From: 15thAlabama (emailname) *
01/03/99 12:36:36 PST

To: Nick Danger

Bill Bennet gets it! New Page 2


The Death of Outrage
@1998 Free Press-Division of Simon and Schuster William J. Bennett

'Talking points' for all moderates and liberals from the author
of the "Book of Virtues".

"1. Character in our president doesn't matter. It's the
economy, stupid.

2. Some powerful people are above the law. They
don't need to play by the rules.

3. Adultery is no big deal. It's commonplace. Europeans
don't care about it; neither should we.

4. It's okay to lie under oath.

5. It's okay to grope women as long as you eventually
take no for an answer.

6. It's okay to close your eyes to wrongdoing when it's
your own powerful friends and political allies who have
done wrong.

7. A lot of people engage in misconduct, so it doesn't
matter if you do, too. Everybody does it. This is especially
true in politics.

8. A person hasn't really done anything wrong
unless he's been convicted in a court of law.

9. If you do something wrong and people question you
about it, do not voluntarily step forward, admit wrongdoing,
and take responsibility. Instead, consider doing any or all of the
. Promise to give them answers soon, then stall by giving
evasive answers or no answers at all. Maybe they'll get tired and
drop it.
. Just feign ignorance about what you've done. Say
you don't know what happened, you just don't have the facts.
. Attack those who are raising the questions. Try and
dig up dirt on them. And intimidate them if you can.
. Play down and make fun of their concerns.
. Claim that people are conspiring to make you look guilty.
. Don't explain yourself.

10. The ends justify the means."

From: RJayneJ (RJayneJ@aol.com) *
01/03/99 12:38:35 PST

To: 15thAlabama
" I am one of the few Americans who realizes that our enemy is not Russia, China or North Korea (as our Vietnam vets would have you believe)."

I am trying my utmost to contain my rage. Ah, to hell with it. Who in the hell do you think you are. "I am one of the few Americans..." What an ego. And why in the hell would you add the codicle "as our Vietnam vets would have you believe".

I don't know you and I can assure you after a statement like that I don't think I care to either. While I certainly may agree with your conclusion about the Liberal's you have lost any future credibility with this Vietnam Veteran.

Greg Adams
aka ImpBill

From: ImpBill () *
01/03/99 12:47:38 PST

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
I work for a company like that right now. Want to know the most important "initative" at the moment? DIVERSITY. It is much more important to get rid of competent white males and seed our organization with all the colors of the rainbow, regardless of merit. The current non white males in charge would be laughable, if they weren't destroying the company.

As a consequence of these practices, our company is having its 4th downsizing in 7 years. In the third quarter alone, our profits were down 80%. I will be taking early retirement and this will relieve me of having to take the homosexual awareness workshops planned. (God only knows what exercises are planned for these workshops).

I will be moving as far away from the rest of our "fellow Sheeple citizens" as I can. Our country was founded by those sick and tired of the old countries they were from. Unfortunatelly, there is no good available real estate available anymore. Too bad the Moon and Mars are so far away.
From: 15thAlabama (emailname) *
01/03/99 12:53:20 PST

To: Nick Danger
Consider if you will the word "death".

If I believe I am still alive then certainly I must Be alive.

From: bert () *
01/03/99 13:06:24 PST

To: Eagle'sClaw
I tend to agree with this caveat:

the agenda is a seperate battle. No doubt, the left is "evil" by nature, and their agenda must be opposed at every opportunity. However, one should remember, the great "silent majority" or "uncommitted middle" or "independent" is really a misnomer. ANY dynamic personality can capture their vote. Charisma is their siren call. The same middle that voted for Clinton also voted for Reagan!

When another conservative of Reagan's communication skills emerges (and let's pray is't before another commie does), we will again have the "middle". We should, however, remember and hope our GOP leadership remembers that the middle is fickle and uncommitted.

Our challenge is to remove the scourge that now occupies the WH by any means possible with the current political climate. Then we may fight on the field of ideas in the hope we convince as many as possible, but also in the hope another Reagan emerges before another Clinton.
From: Mariner (stsmith@mcione.com) *
01/03/99 13:12:06 PST

To: Shethink13
Way to stick up for yourself doll:)
From: Mariner (stsmith@mcione.com) *
01/03/99 13:13:05 PST

To: Nick Danger

Thanks Nick, for posting the article.

While using insightful exposition, Gabler shows himself nonetheless colored by Leftist thinking (as other comments, e.g., Mariner, okie01, have shown). A very telling point is the left's intolerance of dissent, versus the right's willingness to forgive, as okie01 pointed out.

If these were symmetrically-opposite philosophies, one might expect both to adhere to certain objective standards, logic, intellectual honesty, uniform application, and so forth. If such were the case, we could find a movement independent of the various personalities wielding the levers of society.

Alas, the combination of moral relativism using only subjective standards, yields highly situational ethics that are far more responsive to personalities than anything so immutable as a Constitution. Many other governments and cults show us this path and where it leads. In its extreme self-protection are the copious seeds of its own undoing. It breeds volatility. Even Danny Williams figuratively represents this strong statement.

The Left's argument and battle is in large measure with the US Constitution (to wit, the number of Democrat Socialists on the House Judiciary Committee), and yet often left to be defended by this generation's already-ethically-compromised governmental leaders. (Character matters greatly.) These threads have oft noted how the Left will only use strict Constitutional interpretation (as in harkening to the framers’ intent) when it suits its goals, otherwise eschewing it as it would the plague.

Instead of ethics, logic, or moral absolutes to hold the Left in line, their reliance is on fashionable popular sentiments (Political Correctness, now measured almost daily in opinion polls), stinging critique via hyperbole, tightly controlled media (i.e., propaganda) and character assassination, especially via hypocrisy (again, character does matter).

Without standards, the left cannot be hypocritical. If found to be inconsistent, they revert to situational ethics (every case can be a special case, after all, "it’s all just political").

With the support Democrats will heap on WJC out of love of his public morality, we must actively win and solidify adherents to Constitutional standards and Law. Even though it’s a short term solution to a long term problem, we must do what we can to educate everyone with whom we come into contact—now! Consider: It’s less onerous than would be a coming civil war.

The current exercise should be an opportunity to rally around the Rule of Law and soberly reflect on the fact that our Constitution has thus far brought us the envy of the world in contrast to every other governmental system. We dare not abandon it as lightly as have so many already.

Clinton’s defenders will find he can do no wrong to outweigh his "goods." Yet we see the devilishness of his enablers through the pattern of his lawlessness, which pervades everything he does. We see the need for this pattern to be broken, not only in response to the damage done by his past transgressions, but as a necessary though difficult practice of governmental hygiene for what could yet be wrought in our future, should his actions not be stopped.

As his enablers forever fail to hold him accountable, we must hold him accountable. Otherwise, WJC and his followers threaten destruction of our generation and future generations, the confidence of hundreds of millions have had in the foundation lain over two hundred years ago, and every "brick" lain by those who fought and died for its freedom and continuation throughout our country’s history.


From: holden (holdenf@netscape.net) *
01/03/99 13:14:36 PST

To: ImpBill
Dear Greg Adams:

My sincere apologies to you and all other Vietnam vets concerning the recent post (see following). I am one of the few Americans who realizes that our enemy is not Russia, China or North Korea (as our Vietnam vets would have you believe). It is American liberals, specifically the worst kind - white liberal males.

I will try to explain my comment. A recent posting about the potential of an impending conflict with North Korea was joined by quite a few vets who advocated Klinton nuking North Korea because they were our real enemy, not the Democrats and liberals.

I believe the North Koreans can do me and my family less harm than American liberals. Thus, I was trying to convince some of the vet readers of this point.

Again, my apologies. Unlike our prez, I was in the army at the end of the Vietnam war, but it was over before my unit shipped out.
From: 15thAlabama (emailname) *
01/03/99 13:17:55 PST

To: 15thAlabama
Apology Accepted and likewise tendered.

My skin, even after almost 30 years, is still a little thin when it comes to most subjects Vietnam.

Just a tip - When you paint be careful how broad a brush you use.

Greg Adams
aka ImpBill

From: ImpBill () *
01/03/99 13:29:09 PST

To: Mariner

You are correct, again. My dream is for those in the
middle to know the difference between a bill clinton and
From: Eagle'sClaw (emailname) *
01/03/99 13:45:27 PST

To: Nick Danger
...on the war between the Republican right and the Democratic center...

Democrat center? I believe that this author is engaging in linguistic deconstruction!
From: D'Boy () *
01/03/99 14:10:27 PST

To: global warning
The LA Times?? Those people are generally so far left they would paint Mao as a Republican! I have hated the paper for years and find it imposible to believe they would ever purposely write anything favorable re the Republicans, truth, morality and wisdom. Such ideals are not in their cumputer memories nor do any of their writers understand good and evil and the battle between them.
From: Paul Wilson () *
01/03/99 14:18:52 PST

To: global warning
Very good! Its incredible to me that the pseudo-intellectuals apparently wish to ignore that the sword cuts both ways. Deconstruction, carried to its extreme, implies total chaos! Do you understand, you left-wing clowns?!... The deconstruction of everything, including YOU!
From: Canister (msartillery@datastar.net) *
01/03/99 17:58:24 PST