As the far-too-silent (I hope) majority sit back in stunned disbelief, Kenneth Starr continues to defile the body politic with his media pornography blitz.
How many of us would be prepared to have a detailed depiction of our sex lives broadcast to the entire world? How would we feel to learn that a peeping tom was filming us in our bedrooms? How would we like to have the covers ripped off our very beds, robbing us of our privacy?
This is what has, in effect, happened to President Clinton. A private, sexual relationship between himself and another person has been offered for our voyeuristic "delight." Certainly, any infidelity he has committed is the concern of his wife, Hillary, who has quite decently refrained from adding any fuel to the public fire. Is it any concern of the public? I say not. The President's sex life has nothing to do with how he runs the country.
What's that? He lied under oath? HELLO! Does anyone expect the truth from the government? Or is it OK for the government to lie to the public but not for the President to lie to another branch of the government? Clinton lied when being questioned about things that are none of our damned business! He had every right to lie. He never should have had to answer in the first place. What man, after all, has never lied about sex? But, the argument goes, the President should be judged by a higher standard than the rest of us. Interesting philosophy. As if a man's "character" can be judged by whether he lies about nookie. As if a President's or any celebrity's character can be known at all from afar. We don't know what kind of "human being" the President is. All we can know or need to know is his politics. How does he run the country. The Presidency is a job and we are the employers. Do we like the job he is doing? Nothing else is relevant.
But are a lot of people who think "character" is important, not only in the Presidency, but in all occupations. So many companies want to find out all about a prospective employee. Not just hir qualifications, but also hir personality, "character," no doubt, how many teeth s/he has. But a human being is far too complex to capture in any quickie pop interview, question and answer, press conference or situational test. And didn't someone once say, "Judge not, lest you be judged?" Seems I've heard that somewhere. Sounds like good advice to me.
Yes, this is an occasion for shame but the shame belongs to the likes of Ken Starr and the lackeys of the press who so eagerly lick his hand.
Addendum
Now that the smoke has cleared and we are in the middle of a new election, it appears the Republics are trying to get as much mileage from Clinton's little daliance as they can. What a bore! I say that since we're all so fascinated by the Presidential Penis, the next president should be required to reveal all at his inauguration. Let us all get a good look. And to prove his capacity for higher office, I think the candidates should all be required to jerk-off for us on National TV. (Of course this would put the Republicans at a great disadvantage.) Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should require all presidents to be eunuchs. Maybe they should be required to have a vital operation before their inauguration. That way, they won't embarass us.
- Larry Flynt takes on the witchhunters
Thank you, Larry!- The New Sanctimony at Salon.com.
- Sexless in Washington
The shameful exposure of Bill Clinton's penis means the next president will not be allowed one.- ¿Quién es mas macho?
Mexico's presidential candidates call each other "cross-dressing sissy" and "impotent bachelor."
Hole in the
Infinite
The Black Hole
Pet Peeves
Politics (yuck!)