skank
n.
1. The destroyer of a village. ie mr. bill and mrs bill.
2. Disgusting or vulgar matter; filth. ie mr. bill and mrs bill.
3. One who is digustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually promiscuous. ie mr. bill
Used especially of a woman or girl. ie mr. bill
How to Destroy a Village: The skanks of America.
What the Clintons Taught a Seventeen Year Old
By Jason D. Fodeman
When Bill and Hillary Clinton entered the White House in January of
1993, most people either liked them or didn't. Just as most people
either agreed with their beliefs or didn't. However, when Bill Clinton
became President, I was only nine years old. I was a fourth grader
at Long Lots Elementary School in Westport, Connecticut. I did not
know anything about the Clintons personally or politically, which
parallels the fact that I had no political beliefs at the time. My main
concerns were playing Nintendo and learning how to do long
division.
From that day eight quick years ago, I transformed from a political
know nothing to part of the evil "vast right-wing conspiracy" that is
out to get the innocent Clintons. Obviously, at age nine, I was not
against the Clintons, so something had to trigger or cause me to
feel the way that I do now.
About two years ago, I started getting interested in politics. I
watched the news, mostly cable and some network. I read
newspapers, books, and Internet articles. Facts that I learned
about the Clintons were so shocking and repulsive that it was hard
for me to fathom how this family could rise to the most powerful
office in our great country. It was these disturbing actions and the
lessons that the actions give that turned me against the Clintons.
It is a good thing that I was brought up in such a moral household.
My parents' strong emphasis on honor and integrity helped me
avoid being sucked in by the Clintons' horrible examples. My
parents taught me not to lie, to always obey the laws, and to treat
others respectfully (even those I didn't like or agree with). The
Clintons' actions were in direct conflict to all of these lessons. Even
parental lessons that the Clintons' deeds in part corroborated, the
Clintons still managed to put a corrupt, dishonest spin on them.
Luckily my parents embedded so many morals in me that I was able
to see the wrong in the Clintons' actions and was not seduced by
the darker side. However, I fear that other teenagers who did not
have as strong an upbringing as I did may have been negatively
influenced by what the Clintons did. Many young adults are
impressed by money and power. If they see a man who has both
but has no integrity, these young adults may think inappropriate
conduct is acceptable, even a justifiable means to an end.
Much attention has been given to the decline in youth values after
events like the atrocious Columbine massacre. The experts and
pundits often blame the easy-accessible R-rated movies that are
filled with death, violence, sex, and profanity. Other experts
reproach the rappers who produce CDs that glorify violence and
profanity. While others denounce the excessively violent video
games. The three above items may indeed be inappropriate and
much too easily accessible to children. However, over the past
eight years the three were not nearly as prominent in our society as
the former First Family was.
The Clintons in a way were similar to these forms of entertainment
in their effect on youth. No, the Clintons did not teach us violence,
but the logic is the same: just as violent video games and rap
music have some effect on children, so did the Clintons' behavior.
Kids heard about the actions of the Clintons and just as with the
video games, children have become desensitized to inappropriate
actions while more impressionable children may have adopted the
Clintons' modus operandi as their own. Kids learn from what they
see and hear.
The Clintons' lessons may actually be worse. Rap, movies, and
video games often exhibit negative aspects of violence. Movies
may contain violence, but usually the bad guys don't get away
scot-free and admired by millions of people. In most movies the
villains are either killed or arrested showing kids the negative
aspect of violence and the price that must be paid for such a
lifestyle. The same can be said about violent video games too. If
you keep playing, you will eventually lose or die.
Even vulgar rap music indirectly shows the negatives of the lifestyle
mentioned in the music. No the songs don't say violence is bad or
not to do what the music says, but if you have followed the police
reports lately you will be aware that rappers Jay-Z, Puff Daddy,
DMX, and Eminem have all had problems with the law. Also in the
past decade two rappers died in a way similar to their music.
Rap, movies, and video games indirectly show children that there
will be dire consequences to their actions, but the same can not be
said about the Clintons. The Clintons have demonstrated to kids do
whatever you want and then cover up and do anything possible to
evade responsibility. The Clintons did not really suffer from their
behavior because they did not get into serious trouble and worst of
all their methods prevailed in part because of a blind eye from the
Justice Department and the media. However, the Justice
Department will not look the other way for the average citizen. A
young person who follows the Clinton formula will get no such free
ride.
According to an analysis of Hillary Clinton's book, It Takes a
Village, the book is titled after the African proverb, " 'It takes a
village to raise a child' " (Anderson, "It Takes a Village An Analysis
of Hillary Clinton's Book"). I guess it all depends on what the
definition of "village" is, but my definition is everyone in a community
from ordinary salesmen to teachers to powerful politicians. That
means that in the "village" of the United States the Clintons as the
First Family had a key influence in the raising of each child. It was
their role to set a moral and ethical example for the younger
generation to learn from. As we all know, unfortunately they did not.
The innumerable Clinton scandals demonstrate the clear negative
lessons that the Clintons espoused. I have rejected their mantra
and its likely consequences. Were you and your children able to?
I am a busy teenager who wrote this to address the issue of the
Clintons' influence on children that has thus far been ignored.
Unlike catastrophic violence, children's everyday wrongdoing and
its causes, which are much more rampant, have not been
adequately explored. The Clintons lowered the bar for what is
acceptable behavior in a civilized society.
Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
At a young age I learned the proverb, fool me once shame on you,
fool me twice shame on me. My parents explained that the saying
means you should learn from your mistakes. No one is perfect.
Everyone makes mistakes. The difference between success and
failure is often the ability to learn from those mistakes. It is
acceptable to make a mistake, but do not repeat the same error.
Obviously, this applied to the Clintons, but what has been learned
from the experience? The Clintons' record of sleaze, their pushing
the envelope to the outer fringes, and their wrongdoing from
Arkansas to Washington has been well documented. Were those
who supported Clinton duped or simply taken in by his charm,
intelligence and slick talk? Were they seduced by a job and a
strong economy? Did they prostitute the values and ethics they
were teaching their young for that pay check while ignoring the
barrage of disturbing allegations and the unending layers of
scandal?
I believe that ultimately it is the children, the family, and indeed the
very fabric of our society that has suffered from enduring and
tolerating the Clinton years. For children the waters were muddied
as to right and wrong. It was a time that exposed the hypocrisy of
parental guidance: demonstrating compromised values, do as I say,
not as I do. Clinton did just about everything that a parent would
advise against. He lied, covered up, verbally attacked those
perceived as a threat, was disloyal to friends, and basically only
cared about himself. Clinton had a " 'You got to do what you gotta
do' " ("the New Senate Politics") attitude that superseded all other
interests.
President Clinton is out of power now, so what's the difference one
might inquire? To ask the question is to have missed the point. It is
the future I am concerned about, not the past, and the imprint
embedded in the nation' conscience. People learn best by example
and practice, and children are the most susceptible of all. These
children observed a spectrum of disgraceful conduct from a sitting
president committing perjury without punishment to repeated
declarations that oral sex was somehow not sex. The danger is that
they will try to emulate the Clintons' strategies while lacking the
power, communication skills, and support system of their mentor.
Those who follow the Clintons' model undoubtedly are in for a rude
awakening
Hopefully the Clinton Presidency will prove to be an anomaly, not a
precedent for politicians and others in positions of trust and power.
Frankly, I have my doubts. As long as the tactics work, there are
those who will try to exploit them. Character assassinations worked
for Clinton and his acolytes, so now we see Governor Gray Davis
attacking the management of Texas utility companies for the
California energy problems, conveniently ignoring conservationist
and environmental policies that thwarted production for many years.
When the personal and financial dealings of Rev. Jesse Jackson
are questioned, rather than addressing the issue directly, which
should be the obligation of any public figure using tax exempt
donations, there is an attack on the motives of the messenger, Bill
O'Reilly. Whether it is New Jersey Senator Torricelli facing
allegations of bribery or California Congressman Condit's
involvement in a liaison or worse, the pattern is becoming more
brazen: hire a legal team, hold on to power at all costs, stonewall,
obfuscate, demean the accuser or the victim. Sound familiar?
The Clinton era has created a heightened level of cynicism. Many
question and even distrust their democratically elected
government. When missing FBI documents suddenly appear,
immediately after FBI Director Freeh announces his resignation,
and shortly before the scheduled McVeigh execution, there are
those I am sure who wonder, honest mistake or a page out of the
Clinton play book-read Hillary's billing records. This skepticism can
lead to a diminution of confidence in our institutions of government
and that is not a healthy situation for any of us.
I believe character, values, morals do matter for all of us, and
especially in our political leaders who enjoy great power and
influence. If one can not be responsible in the most interpersonal
relationships, how can there be trust among constituents and
professional associates? Furthermore, it does not suffice to simply
say Clinton was too shrewd or blame a complicitous Justice
Department or a largely adoring media. To paraphrase
Shakespeare, the fault lies with us.
This is not a liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican issue. It
transcends labels. All participants should hold their candidates and
leaders to the highest standards, which should be a prerequisite. If
the parties fail to do so, the public should reject them. There are
well qualified, honest, articulate individuals representing all
philosophies. Why must we settle for less? Yet having said all this,
we see Hillary Clinton elected United States Senator of New York of
all places. Surely there are distinguished New York Democrats with
a respected record and value system who could better and more
honorably represent the Empire State.
What does it all mean? Has the United States fallen into a hopeless
morass or were the Clinton years a freak of nature with the sun,
moon and stars aligning in a once in an eternity pattern? I do not
know much about astrology but as a seventeen-year-old looking
toward the future, there has to be a positive side to these events.
Lincoln said, "It is true that you may fool all the people some of the
time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you
can't fool all of the people all the time." It should be noted that
Clinton never won a majority of the votes cast in either the 1992 or
1996 election. When first elected president, Democrats controlled
both Houses of Congress and thirty governorships. When he left
office in January 2001 Republicans recaptured the presidency
carrying both Arkansas and Tennessee, narrowly controlled both
Houses of Congress, and held thirty governorships. Furthermore,
despite high job approval ratings, even during the impeachment
period, he left office with the majority of those polled believing he is
a person of low moral character and integrity. Finally, whether a
supporter of Mr. Clinton or not, I find it hard to believe that anyone
can look in the mirror, or send a child to the military or off to school
or even out on a date and express pride and respect in our
forty-second president's behavior.
The spring and summer of 2001, marked the first time in ten or more
seasons that I did not try out and play on a baseball team. I love
the game, but I wanted to finish this manuscript before college
commenced in the fall. I know that assorted professional experts
have covered the Clintons' scandals ad nauseam over the years,
yet I still believed there was something to add from a young
person's perspective. I believe the Clinton phenomenon has left
deep scars on the soul of American life. Particularly effected are the
young who saw parents turn a blind eye to the endless stream of
scandals and malfeasance, who preached lofty goals and values
but fell short themselves. I wrote this to address this perceived
dichotomy and its likely consequences. Adults, who clearly would
not want this philanderer for a spouse, or depend on him as a
friend, or leave him five minutes with their daughter, or trust him with
their legitimate business interests, apparently concluded that for a
president he was okay.
It saddens me that parents still do not get it. Children see the
president as a role model who should set the highest moral and
ethical standards, values to which we all can aspire. If you do not
want your kids to behave irresponsibly, to lie, and to deceive, then
do not rationalize that a president's disgraceful actions are
somehow acceptable. In today's vernacular, you got to talk the talk
and walk the walk. Nothing is a bigger turn off to a kid than this do
as I say, not as I do mentality.
Some people may dismiss this analysis as just that of another
Clinton basher. I refuse to be put on the defensive. I believe the
office of the presidency was debased and the public trust violated
by Mr. Clinton. It is a further shame that Clinton himself, an
obviously bright man with a golden tongue, diminished his own
legacy by his personal failings.
I consider myself a compassionate young person with no political
agenda or ax to grind while growing up in the 1990's. It is precisely
for this reason that people should objectively consider the points
raised in this writing. I think in the fullness of time, sociologists will
study and debate the ramifications of issues raised herein. America
is a great nation with a heritage that is the envy of the world. People
often try not to be too judgmental. But there are times when events
require a judgment, when a sophisticated society must definitively
declare something right or wrong. It is my contention that at some
point during the Clinton years, Americans unambiguously should
have said, " enough we will tolerate this no more." Time will tell.
..................http://aim.org/
tom watson tosiwmee |
