SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (46926)5/8/1999 8:28:00 PM
From: Les H  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Four Revolting Spectacles
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, May 5, 1999; Page A31

Revolting spectacles are never rare in our nation's capital, and life in the
Clinton era has been unusually blessed in this regard. But the past week
has seen a really remarkable haul of stomach-turning episodes.

We here at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (East) have
been so impressed that we are moved to award a special midyear edition
of our annual prize for "the most revolting spectacle in the field of politics
and/or governance committed by a single individual or group of individuals
acting in concert."

Competition for the Sidney, as the prize is popularly known, is always
fierce. As the language of the award states, a winner must exhibit, "in a
single episode, venality, vanity, shamelessness, obscenity, dishonesty or
cowardice to a degree so far beyond the norm of Washington behavior as
to offend the sensibilities of former special White House counsel Lanny
Davis or (in the rare event that Mr. Davis is unavailable for comment) gag
a goat."

Last week, we saw four revolting spectacles that clearly -- indeed
overwhelmingly -- met these lofty standards.

John F. Kennedy Jr., president and editor in chief of George magazine,
was nominated for his decision to invite to the White House
Correspondents Association annual dinner Mr. Larry Flynt, publisher of
Hustler magazine.

To fully grasp the enormity of this nominee's revolting spectacle, it must be
considered that Mr. Flynt is not only a pornographer but a pornographer
of such a nature as to give pornography a bad name. Mr. Flynt's flagship
publication, Hustler, is renowned for its vicious racism, its frequent and
hate-filled depictions of women subjected to acts of degradation and
violence and its reliance on fecal matter as a source for humor.

It must also be considered that Mr. Flynt is himself a man who claims to
have had sexual intercourse with, and then strangled, a chicken. And that
Mr. Flynt's daughters have accused him of sexually abusing them. And
that, during the impeachment of President Clinton, Mr. Flynt engaged in a
loathsome campaign of sexual blackmail to terrorize Republican senators
and congressmen and to keep them from pursuing their constitutional duty.

But, above all, it must be considered that Mr. Flynt is a man who first rose
to national prominence, in 1975, for printing in Hustler nude photographs
of none other than . . . the mother of John F. Kennedy Jr. A very
impressive nominee.

A second nominee arising from the White House correspondents' dinner
was its guest of honor, President Clinton. Mr. Clinton was nominated for
jokingly complaining that his disgrace and impeachment over the Lewinsky
affair did not make the top 50 in a recently published list of the century's
top 100 stories. "I don't mind telling you I made the list . . . ," said Mr.
Clinton. "Number 53. Fifty-three? I mean, what does a guy have to do to
make the top 50 around here?"

Impressed academy members noted that the president not only made light
of the fact that he had wrecked his second term in office, disgraced the
presidency, harmed his country, undermined the law, been impeached and
been held in contempt of court, exposed himself as an obsessive liar and
conscienceless sexual predator -- but that he did this with his wife sitting
next to him. Another very, very strong contender.

The third nominee is a group entry, comprising the entire Republican and
Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives, for leading (or
rather not leading) their members to a 213-213 tie vote on April 28,
declining to support their nation in its air war against Serbia.

This historic act of cowardice, fecklessness and partisanship deeply moved
even veteran academy members. Particularly noted was "Speaker" J.
Dennis Hastert, for voting in support of the measure but then abandoning
the floor while Majority Whip Tom DeLay successfully drummed up GOP
votes in opposition. Also personally cited was Minority Leader Dick
Gephardt, for his stunning inability to come up with the necessary switch of
a single vote among 26 Democrats voting against the leader of their nation
and party.

But, in the end, all of these deserving nominees were trumped by a man
who is no stranger to these awards.

For undermining his nation during a time of war; for giving aid and comfort
to the enemy; for grandstanding on a grand and gross scale; for exploiting
three U.S. soldiers as pawns in the propaganda efforts of Slobodan
Milosevic; for rewarding Milosevic with a public call that the United States
cease bombing; for leading the freed soldiers to chant, in a supremely
revolting moment, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at
last" . . . this special Sidney goes to the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

Michael Kelly is the editor of National Journal.

search.washingtonpost.com



To: Neocon who wrote (46926)5/8/1999 8:33:00 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 67261
 
Well I guess we do disagree and not only about platitudes. Depends on how you define raising a family in "modest" comfort. Are two incomes really necessary? How much does one need to be "modestly" comfortable and still give the children the attention and care they need? What comes first, "modest" comfort or a child's well being. Why are people so preoccupied with "things"? Does it have anything to do with the increasing secularization and almost total elimination of God from our lives? I don't know. Tough questions I suppose. However, the choices we make say a lot about us as people. And the choices we seem to make in this country nowadays are all too often anything but "heroic" to use your term. JLA



To: Neocon who wrote (46926)5/8/1999 8:41:00 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
 
One more comment. I can see the other position. I just refuse to accept it. And neither sympathy nor empathy for intentional behavior of others which results in adverse consequences has ever been my strong suit. You got me on that one. JLA