If I were King
Clown
Paulie

The Environment
Kyoto: Bad Idea for Greens

V-ROC is an idea inspired by Hillary Clinton's infamous 1998 remark blaming a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for her husband's bald face lie to the American people. "Now you listen to me!" The President commanded, his finger wagging at each of us, fire burning in his eyes. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." With those words, America was plunged into 16 months of government lies, deception, and intimidation. So what's new? Lies, deception, and intimidation have been federal government tactics for as long as we can remember. The Lewinsky situation was different, we feel, because the entire "drama" played out on a world stage. Anyone who wanted could see, judge, and conclude, for themselves, what was happening. Anyone could see the president wag his finger and firmly say he had "no sexual relations," when in fact he had sexual relations. Any person with a television saw Clinton front man, James Carville, make insulting comments about people who live in trailer parks (comments, that if made by John Rocker or Charles Barkley, would have caused a media uproar). We all heard the president question the definition of "is." We actually heard the president’s aides announce that they would systematically destroy the reputation of anybody who dared to oppose the president – a "scorched earth" policy. And we certainly witnessed the destruction of Ken Star, whom the White house attempted to wrongly portray as, among other things, a tobacco-funded baby-killer, a pervert, and a puritanical zealot.

All along, the President and his allies, claimed that Clinton-Lewinsky was "just about sex." In reality, however, sex was merely incidental to a larger situation. Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. In such cases, a person’s sexual habits and history have bearing – especially if they involve people at work. They can help establish a pattern of behavior which may lead to conviction or acquittal. In Clinton’s case, he attempted to deny the Lewinsky accusation in order to cover up his own pattern of behavior. Had Jones been suing Clinton for stealing wine from her basement, his sexual behavior really would have been "just about sex." On the other hand, any past incidents of wine thievery, would not be "just about alcohol."

The point here is not to re-live the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but rather to suggest that Clinton-Lewinsky is the ultimate symbol of government abuse of power as it happens today. Government abuse of power happens every day in ways that are too numerous and seemingly too subtle to gain national media attention. In any given week, group A recognizes and fights abuse X, group B complains about abuse Y, and so on. Seldom, however, does a case of governmental abuse of power gain so much attention for so long, from such a broad array of Americans and American institutions. Network news media, cable news shows, talk radio, local newspapers, national newspapers, intellectual forums, late night TV, sitcoms, morning D.J. shows, job sites, and water cooler conversations were all dominated by Clinton-Lewinsky for a year and a half. A person did not need to subscribe to a special interest magazine, be an investigative reporter, or commit himself to a particular "cause" to keep abreast of Clinton-Lewinsky. The facts were out there, all around us every day, being reported or actually presenting themselves as events unfolded before our eyes. Beyond the ability to watch, judge, and draw conclusions, citizens could also take action against the abuser if they desired. They could pressure their representatives to impeach the president and remove him from office.

The scandal was like an experiment, carried out by the ghosts of Washington, Jefferson, & Adams, to determine once and for all, whether their American democracy could become subject to the same tyrannical tendencies as the 18^th century European monarchies they so disdained. Into their laboratory they placed a free people and a democratic government. To the free people they granted the power to control the government. To see if they could be compelled to exercise this power, the highest government official was caused to commit a singular, gross, and irrefutable act of corruption, in full view of every living American citizen. This singular act was then allowed to cascade into a thousand more abuses over the ensuing 16 months – also in full view of everyone. Sadly, the experiment did nothing to prove that a democracy is less prone to despotism than a dictatorship.

One philandering president (nor a dozen) does not a corrupt government make. Nor does a lying president necessarily make a corrupt government. But a free people, empowered to elect, control, and punish their governors, who turn a blind eye to tyranny, could poison a government beyond all measure for all time. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is discussed here, not because it is the worst government abuse we have ever seen, but because it is the most familiar and clear example we have of free citizens acting like royal subjects – tolerating corruption rather than punishing it. Why did we let the president continue in office for one more day after his arrogant claim of no "sexual relations" was scientifically disproved? Was it because we were afraid that we might fall off track without somebody of Mr. Clinton’s abilities to "run" the country? Were we afraid Mr. Clinton’s downfall might cause the brisk economy to stifle? Did we fear Clinton’s potential pursuit of revenge? Do we simply think lying is O.K now? Questions like these are not limited to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Why, for example, did it take so long, in our country, to declare that blacks are citizens instead of property? Did we fear we could not survive without slave labor? Why do we let the federal government tax us at the highest effective rate since World War II? Do we believe the government will go bankrupt? Do we believe that certain people will lose benefits and die? Why do we tolerate laws which eliminate all public school choice for children? Do we believe that poor schools in bad neighborhoods are the best alternative for certain children? Why do presidents, governors, and senators always take credit for a good economy without offering evidence of why they deserve credit? Why are we petrified at the prospect of losing government managed social security when the historical performance of the stock market more than doubles that of federal social security? Why do we not rebel when we realize that we are paying for failed public housing projects? Why are dutiful, industrious citizens forced to transfer portions of their earnings to irresponsible ne’er do wells? Why has government grown more expensive while solving none of the problems they say they will? Why must the growth of Microsoft be stopped, but the growth of the federal government is allowed no limit?