General Board

So shoot me...

Posted By: Redster <macisme@primenet.com> (216.103.35.107)
Date: Friday, 23 February 2001, at 10:21 p.m.

In Response To: While I never EVER liked Nixon.... (Kris)

This is gonna be a long one…

"...We know that if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes truth. Intelligent, thinking, rational, open minded people have been completely swayed by these repetitions. Once the lies become ingrained as truth, there is no hope for the facts..."

Lies repeated gain force and weave their way into the fragile fabric of truth.

That goes for Democrats, Republicans and all in-between or on the fringes.

Unfortunately, the two major parties have had more "air time" than any of the competing parties in which to weave their respective lies—in fact, the networks in this last general election blatantly chose NOT to air anything outside of the “big two” (or precious little, and virtually nothing when it got down to the wire). That is, as the Catholics say, a lie of “omission.” The debate commission, in direct violation of the Helsinki Accords which we as a nation foist off onto all other countries going through the “democratic” election process, denied any candidates other than the Democrat and Republican fellows a forum in which to present their views and possibilities to the general public of America. The two big parties foist their "spin" (via their willing media accomplices) of what they want the public to believe the "truth" IS, regardless of its veracity or lack of same. They are equally reprehensible and corrupt as far as I’m concerned. Both political parties are made up of good and bad, ethical and corrupt people. Unfortunately, the money and the power and the corruption tend to win out over the ethical people, trampling over their ideals. The result? As a nation, we are then left with presidential choices no better than “the lesser of two evils.”

So I don't understand what I consider to be a mistaken precept that EITHER side is to be believed at face value—or even with some major digging! And if one decries the misdeeds of ONE side, they should be shouting at an equally loud volume at the misdeeds of the OTHER. That just isn't happening. Clean one’s own disgusting house before sanctimoniously turning one’s nose up at someone else’s filth. Better yet, while one works on cleaning up one’s own side of the street, try walking over and sweeping the garbage out of the gutters across the road. Hold both to task for their respective peccadilloes and missteps or hold the collective tongue. I tend to play “Devil’s Advocate” in these situations because I HAVE no ties to either party or loyalty to either camp feeding their respective lies to the masses. In this instance, the “Bill’s a lying horny toad” were the loudest voices, so I brought forth some less than stellar coins from the accusatory camp’s coffers to be a reminder of the old “pot calling the kettle black/those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” etc. It in no way should be interpreted that I don’t feel the man should be punished for his (not yet proven) crimes IF any allegations are proven and make their way through the court system using the “due process” to which all U.S. citizens are entitled. I just think that the “innocent until PROVEN guilty” dictum should remain in play for anyone, even if I don’t happen to agree with their political, moral or ethical leanings or allegiances.

On a sort of different note… This election also exposed the big lie of “One person, one vote.” I am glad that the American public has had their collective noses pushed into the fact that unless you vote as the rest of your neighbours (state) vote, your vote for President means NOTHING with respect as to who is actually elected. It DOES mean something to alternate party candidates, as funding hinges on percentage points. It DOES say something about whether or not one has the guts to make that one vote count as a symbol of conscience and to be a voice to the powers-that-be—letting them know they are NOT the voice of the majority of the country’s citizens. As long as we buy into the lie how great the two-party system is for our country, we deserve what we get—and what we get at that level after all the wheeling and dealing and favours and greasing of palms is almost inevitably someone who, while they may have once had altruistic ideals and goals, has done whatever was needed to just GET into the office. And while I don’t like the guy, and think he’s as much of a liar as Bush is, Gore received almost a quarter of a million MORE votes, so Bush hasn’t got himself a mandate by any means, although he did manage to squeak into the presidency (with his brother’s help, who promised to “deliver Florida” for him, and evidently he did). Bravo for being the slime that managed to rise to the top of the dung heap. Whoopteedoo. Pardon me if I don’t rise up in a standing ovation for any of them.

Hey, and since the subject of ethics cropped up, did I mention that during Ronald Reagan's eight years in office, more than 100 officials were accused of illegal or unethical conduct, and several senior officials—including secretaries of interior, labor and defense—were indicted or convicted? Both of Reagan's attorney generals battled allegations of ethical violations. Nine independent counsels conducted inquiries. No Republican mentions these little details or even alludes to their party’s past or present improprieties when trashing the “other” side, just as none of the Democrats bring up any the missteps of any people in THEIR ranks.

"...Again, I cannot imagine someone as bright as you, Red, tossing out the 'thou also' fallacy of reasoning in any attempt to justify what this country has been subjected to in the past eight years..."

That's not what I said OR implied. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy in decrying the misdeeds of ONE side (or a person on that "side") and conveniently forgetting and/or condoning similar (or worse) behaviour by those who agree with one's own general political viewpoints. And, frankly, I don't think our country has been "subjected" to anything worse under Clinton’s administration than we have “endured” under any other presidency. Each generation breeds its own saints, sinners and regular folk, and the tenor of the times often causes scenarios to unfold which are not the “fault” of any given duly-elected official. We sometimes just have to make due with what’s dished out onto our collective plate. We also have ways now to disseminate "instant" information, and that information is inevitably skewed by the persons/companies putting out the information for our consumption. It takes some digging and some more work on our part as individuals to ferret out as much “truth” amidst the lies as we can. We can’t depend on the sound bytes of the nightly news. The networks wouldn’t know truth if they fell in it.

An example of the partisan hypocrisy of which I speak: Reagan’s & Bush Sr.'s pardons were NEVER subjected to the same scathing attacks and probes as Clinton's are now, even though some of those pardons were just as smarmy as any previous (or, I'm pretty sure, future) Presidential Pardons. Bush pardoned people responsible for the loss of thousands of lives. Where were the screaming voices of the Republican then? Where was the cry on the part of the Republicans and their party for "justice" for all the people whose lives were lost because these six pardoned men helped kill them? Conspiracy to commit murder is just as heinous as the deed itself, and the fact that these men never shot one of the guns they helped supply to murderers doesn't absolve them from their participation or their lies in covering it up... yet Bush Sr. DID. Now that “side” doesn’t like the smell of another President's pardons. What else is new? Since when do the Republicans like ANYTHING the Democrats do—or vice versa? Most likely there will always be some measure of suspicion around pardons given, Presidential or otherwise, unless there is irrefutable, DNA evidence which EXCLUDES the person being pardoned—and in those cases, fully exonerated! And remember... a pardon doesn't assume that the person was even INNOCENT of the crime/deed for which they have been accused and/or convicted; they do not erase a conviction; they say ”you’ve paid enough for your crime;” they allow individuals to regain rights sometimes denied them, such as the right to vote.

And before anyone rags about the NUMBER of pardons from Ol’ Willie… Reagan & Ford pardoned only approximately 50 fewer people during their respective tenures in office, Jimmy Carter pardoned 566, Nixon 926 (twice the number Clinton did), Truman 2044, and FDR a whopping 3687. Can anyone even NAME a handful of those pardoned or whose sentences were commuted and WHY? Hmmm? And why not? Because by and large, the majority of the people of this country just DON’T CARE unless it has affected them PERSONALLY. A lot of people have gotten hot under the collar about something that under other circumstances they wouldn’t give a hoot about. In my opinion, it’s because those desperate to get something on Clinton haven’t been able to make anything stick to him yet, and they’re gonna keep trying until they do. It’s no more about justice than it is about fashion, IMHO. It’s a bunch of spoiled brats of no better character than those they are attempting to bully, who are ticked off because somebody’s played a better game of dodge-ball than they have.

Meanwhile, Bush gives his press conferences, keeps fielding questions about Clinton, and repeatedly says they all have to “move forward.” So much for the power of the presidency. His puppeteers aren’t going to rest until they get something concrete on the Clintons (and I think they loathe Hillary as much or more than ol’ Bill). Meanwhile, Bush is pushed to the side amidst the clamour, and attention is diverted from him, which I’m sure is ticking him off to no end. I keep expecting that any day now, he’s going to appear in public doing a Richard Nixon “I AM THE PRESIDENT!” impression. It’s pathetic. The whole scenario, the whole situation, the whole finger pointing at the opposition while the cancer spreads in their own ranks. And the public follows like sheep. Depending on which side’s rhetoric one chooses to call “truth” and which skewed statistics one chooses to use as “valid,” one is likely to fall in line with one or the other’s accusations of the other. That’s sad, too.

A couple of other things I’d like to bring up about lies…

ASHCROFT. I am appalled that the Democrats didn’t filibuster to keep him out. As capable and as able as he might be in certain areas, this man has been the perpetrator of such vile and vicious lies over the years, and he is now basically in charge of the laws of our land. I thought that at the very least, Helmet-Hair Feinstein (I didn’t vote for her, either) would give ‘em a run for their money, but she wimped out like every other Democrat in the Senate. I wouldn’t trust Ashcroft to tell the truth if it didn’t serve his own selfish purposes—EVER.

About the sex stuff… Tell me… has anyone ever heard of a man ‘fessing up at FIRST query to cheating on his wife (and I do consider getting a bj being unfaithful, btw, whether Mt. Vesuvius erupts or not)? Do you know ANY man (or woman for that matter) who would willingly and, more to the point, publicly announce that they’d been unfaithful unless they were sure that someone had incontrovertible evidence? If anyone says “yes,” “pardon” me for scoffing.

So it was okay for Caspar Weinberger to lie under oath four times regarding situations which led to thousands of deaths (Bush, Sr., in his pardon of Weinberger, called the attempt to hold the man accountable for those lies a “criminalization of policy differences,” a huge lie if I ever heard one)—yet we’re supposed to want to politically lynch Clinton, who didn’t immediately ‘fess up about having sexual relations (of the oral kind) with a woman who admittedly told her friends she was going to Washington to obtain her “presidential kneepads?” I’m not defending his actions by any means, but when a woman lifts her skirts in front of a man to show him her G-string underwear, she is NOT without complicity in what happens later! And since when is a person responsible for (or even necessarily cognizant of) the actions of their brother-in-law? How many of YOU are in constant contact with YOUR in-laws, and how often do YOU discuss intimate details of their private and/or professional lives? As for his brother… Get real. Tell me ONE politician who wouldn’t do everything within his/her power to smooth the way for a sibling (assuming they actually care about them), short of pardoning them for mass murder or something equally reprehensible—with loss of life and/or limbs involved?

By the way… “pardon” me if I speak of our current President’s stance on ethics and pardons… Let’s see… his campaign was highly funded by oil conglomerates, and we know how ethical THEY are… He pulled the switch (by proxy) and killed 152 people in Texas during his tenure in office (the highest of any elected official in American history—and included the mentally disabled and retarded, along with juveniles). With regard to one case in which the man had been denied his consular rights (as is so for the majority of the almost 75 foreigners on Death Row in Texas, including a Canadian man who was denied his consular rights for 15 YEARS), Bush said, "Texas did not sign the Vienna Convention, so why should we be subject to it ?" Ahem… Yeah… I trust THAT man to uphold the laws of the land and international conventions and treaties… I believe THAT man to be truthful… Uhmmm… Maybe not… Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights, the U.S. government has the OBLIGATION of informing any foreign citizen arrested on U.S. soil of their consular rights. Bush has publicly middle-fingered that law in executing people denied those rights—numerous times. So… There hasn’t been a Federal execution under any President for 37 years. Let’s see how long that lasts, and whether he will flaunt the Vienna Convention on a Federal level. Then when it’s time for HIM to leave office, let’s scrutinize HIS pardons and sentence commutations and see whether or not HIS cronies benefit, and what the death toll for the Federal inmates turns out to be.

And sorry… the apples and oranges argument doesn’t fly for me—on any level. Just because one points out the discrepancies in the rhetoric of one party/point of view, doesn’t mean by default one is CONDONING the same or similar behaviour in an individual or group with opposing views. It also doesn’t blanketly negate what good may have occurred under any given administration or during any particular era, either. It simply means that when a multitude of voices cry out in horror about the dastardly deeds of one individual or group, and conveniently push the misdeeds of THEIR group under the proverbial rug, I’m likely to get annoyingly vocal.

Remember that the positive changes and the good stuff in society come about because INDIVIDUALS, regardless of their political leanings, are able to get beyond the partisan garbage and mud-slinging and focus on the task at hand—making life better for everyone on the planet, and that always begins with oneself. And in my case, part of that means NOT shopping at Walmart, the reason that thousands of small businesses in rural and semi-rural areas have gone under, forcing the former owners and workers of/from those businesses to take (sometimes) radically lower-paying jobs at the new “big guy” down the road apiece.

Redster
( )M( )

[Return to Post of the Week] [Main] [Mission] [Scribes] [Art] [Interact] [Resources] [Email Us]