Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Time and the Good

Author:Richard Katz
Posted:12/18/1998; 2:16:23 AM
Topic:DaveNet comments
Msg #:1424 (In response to 1401)
Prev/Next:1423 / 1425


I think when we could consider everything except time, that you are right - that it is for the greater good.

But time is and will always be a factor. Yes, it's good that when the issue of sexual harrasment is raised that it gets cleared up. And even for accused people, it can be good that they get to use that time it takes to examine their lives and do their own internal clearing out.

Where I have a problem with it, with this situation, is that there is no charge of sexual harrasment against President Clinton - there is an inference being made. But the inference is not being by women, in general. And it's especially not being raised by by Monica Lewinsky. If it was, I would agree with you.

The inference is being made by a bunch of fat white sharks and self-avowed hypocrits who already hated President Clinton for all the wrong reasons, who stand to gain from his downfall if only in claiming victory for themselves, and who have bent every word in the dictionary to ensnare him, get the Supreme Court to force him to testify about his sex life, and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I have no problem with Rep. Livingston's sex life. It's his business, not mine. But he should just be thankful that no one was out to "get Livingston," to have a groundless lawsuit brought, to have the Supreme Court order *him* to testify. He's *not* being intimidated.

Where are the women? The feminists are out publicly supporting Bill Clinton. Zoe Lofgren is out trying to bring the Starr Nebula out into the light of public view. A woman in the office where I work told me "It's us women who support Bill Clinton. You men never do."

I also agree that Congressional districts are a big Ouija board. It is one that does not truly represent party composition. And whether it is Republican by "the will of the people" or by Jerrymandering, or some combination, I do not know.

But in any case, the fact that there is a Republican majority does not justify a PAC funded, partisan, majority vote on what should be a fair and impartial process. "Partisan majority" and "impartial" simply are not the same thing. A simple look at the dictionary would probably show why.

There are ways that Congress could be fair, and the majority has willfully chosen to ignore them. Impartiality requires accomodation of all reasonable views. Representatives Nadler, Frank, Schumer, Conyers, Wexler, Lofgren, Jackson-Lee, all of these people have expressed many reasonable objections and points of view, and all of them have been ignored. If any one ever bothered to listen to CSPAN once in a while, they would know that.

By not accomodating these views, the committee has created a very weak, prejudicial, and irresponsible case that even violates due process of law.

I can't excuse that by simply saying it's all for the good. I can't say it's reasonable when it is not. I can't say it's fair when it specifically violates defendant rights to fair hearing.

The co-dependent person can say "there's nothing I can do." But that does not excuse their partner for being an alcoholic, or that being an alcoholic is all for the good. Nor does it mean that they should stock their partner's liquor cabinet.

Time is a factor. The time that Congress spends addicted to impeachment will hurt this country very much. It's time for this country to take their bottles away and drain them into the sink. And that's why I write to them.

(ps. Dave, I filled out the personal info by the way).


There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:44 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.