OFF TOPIC - politics, not trading - please skip this post if you are only
looking for trading ideas!
>Any comments on Travelgate? How about the 900+ FBI files inappropriately
obtained? Can you explain or justify why no one knows who hired the fellow
in charge of security? I can't remember his name but I do remember he was
a bar bouncer prior to being hired for this powerful position. Also, this
was done without him having received a security clearance.
I don't have any more info on Clinton's misdeeds than you do. Clinton is not
spotless by any measure! He's bent more than a few rules. But all presidents
do. Has anyone squeaky clean EVER been elected? I don't think so. Why are we
viewing Clinton under such disproportionate scrutiny? What I am talking about
will become more clear later.
>Do you approve of giving access to the White House and our President for
financial contributions from foreign nationals? Should our foreign policy
be influenced by political contributions?
>No and no. By the same token, I also don't think America should be installing
other governments in central America, brutal Juntas, and swearing in other
governments, like the president of Panama on an American military base while we
were invading that country "to catch the drug kingpin Noriega," killing many
hundreds or a few thousand Panamanians in the process. Do you? Do you approve
of the millions or billions spent on the Shah of Iran, on Pinochet, etc in the
past? How come the press didn't make a big deal of that, but does when China
contributes some $5 million? What is the total amount of American taxpayer money
that goes to interfering with or supporting other governments across the world?
Do you approve of it?
>Should our Vice-President go to a mosque and accept 5000. each from
dozens of inhabitants who, by general knowledge, are sworn to poverty?
No, I think the source of that money is highly suspicious. Would this
be the first time a front organization has contributed money to
American politics, domestic or international? Probably not. Why is such
a big deal being made this time? Should all contributions be halted? Or would
it be better to require full and complete disclosure for every single dollar?
(Why are the Republicans so solidly against campaign finance reform? Do they
have anything to hide?)
>Does our President have responsibility for moral leadership?
No, that's for family, Amnesty International, churches, synagogues, and
mosques. Presidents run countries. Separation of Church and State, etc.
I wouldn't want Bill Gates, Mike Tyson, or whichever basketball player it
was who choked his coach to provide moral leadership either, despite the
fact that these people have a large following and are respected by many,
as is Clinton. Nor would I want ex-CIA director Bush, nor "We begin bombing in
five minutes" Reagan, nor "I am not a crook" Nixon.
>Do you think it is bad for the president of any organization to seduce or
be seduced by a young lady just out of her teens? Should the board of
directors of such an organization or country just look away?
It doesn't bother me, but I guess I go for privacy and individual rights a
bit more than the mainstream finds acceptable. We are talking about
consenting adults, remember. Is he running the organization or country
well? If so, great! Is he running it better than anyone else can? Then send
him up for another term, and hold your noses if you must.
>If she would have been 5 years younger would it not have qualified as
statutory rape? Is that fair?
Of course it would. And if she were a man, would it not mean that Clinton was
gay? Is that fair? Why pursue such counterfactuals? You invented this
particular can of worms. Do you think the media should harp on it, too, a
non-issue? Should we spend another $40 million of taxpayer money investigating
this hypothetical possibility? (The $5 million Gore received, by the way,
doesn't begin to cover Starr's expenses, even if it could be used to. But just
speaking of the money, Starr is 8 times a bigger deal than the ~$5 million
contributions from China to Gore, if that's what it was.) No, this is a great
example of something that we should NOT do, not waste our thoughts or time on.
>Do you think this experience has been good for our country?
If, by "this experience" you mean a few lewd acts, no, I don't think it has been
bad for our country. Did you, or anyone (besides Monica) lose a job because of
these lewd acts? Did anyone die? Suffer great injury, loss of home or land?
Not that I know of!
But wait - we as a country spent wads of money prying about it. If by "this
experience" you mean wasting $40 million, or whatever it is, of taxpayer money
to investigate and splash across the front pages for months, pornographically
detailed expositions of these acts, crucifying Clinton for wrongdoings that
didn't end up killing anybody, while bringing many government functions to a
virtual halt is extremely bad for our country.
But the main fault lies with the press and the public for drinking it up
and begging for more, and not with a dirty old man, even though he
"started it."
>Would you want your son or daughter to gain their parameters of life by
using our president as their role model? I am trying to learn so I would
be very interested in your comments.
Are you serious? No, I would very much hope that they never, ever, look
to politicians as their primary source of "parameters of life." Not
Clinton, not Bush, not Nixon. Nor to televangelists such as Jimmy
Swaggart, and not to lawyers either, as a rule. Admittedly, these people
have found "success" and command the respect of many, but it's not what
I'd call a good role model.
My point is that the indecencies of Clinton seem to be occupying a huge
part of the public eye, far out of proportion to any real damage that he
has caused - except in our "image" of him or of the presidency.
I don't think he's perfect, not by a long shot. Here's something he did that I
would love to see the press grill him for: In response to having two American
embassies bombed, Clinton ordered the military to - drum roll please - bomb more
buildings, killing yet more people. Including a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Do you think that is right? How does one weigh the value of innocent lives lost
there, compared to the value of some white house sex, or file folders on
Republicans, or a highly suspicious, non-cleared security official that nobody
remembers hiring? I think bombing other countries is much, much worse, but it
isn't sex, and it doesn't sell. The media doesn't dwell on bombing other
countries, splashing it across the papers every day. We hear about late night
trysts, cigars, and the DNA results of a stain on a dress. Really, do you think
this is in proportion to the gravity of the respective situations? Innocent
people DIE when they get bombed, and Clinton ordered this to happen.
Instead of posing counterfactuals, things that didn't happen, I'd like to see
the press, the public worry about things that DID happen, where people DID get
harmed. Here are some questions that are not being asked day after day in the
media:
(1) If the purpose of invading Panama were to apprehend drug kingpin
Noriega, do you think it would be acceptable to invade New York City to
catch a visiting drug or Mafia kingpin, with merely 500 American deaths
caused in the process?
(2) If the purpose of bombing Sudan and Afganistan were as a
counter-terrorist measures in retaliation for the embassy bombings, do you
think it would be appropriate to bomb American militant white-supremacist
groups in retaliation for the Oklahoma City bombings? Or for dragging a black
man to his death in Texas? (This would be called "terrorist" if it happened in
Isreal, I'd bet; see the third paragraph here:
dailynews.yahoo.com
This event would be called a "carjacking" if it happened in Los Angeles, and is
not rare there. Should we bomb Los Angeles gang hideouts?)
(3) The tapes Linda Tripp made were illegal, and without them it is possible
Clinton would have gotten away with his affair with Monica. Do you think this
ill-gotten evidence should have been suppressed? Starr found nothing on
Travelgate, the FBI files, the security guard; all his charges finally were
about Monica and the subsequent denials. Do you think it is right to break
the law in order to enforce the law? If so, do you think America should
obey international law in its attempts to deal with other contries, like in
making counter-terrorist strikes that violate other nations sovereignity? Do you
approve of torture in order to get confessions from prisoners when you have
some, but not enough, evidence of their guilt?
Respectfully,
Bruce Tiemann |
