Be Afraid, Be Very
March 8, 2001
a friend about this article
I've been thinking. Don't worry, it's a short journey. Derbyshire warned
us to be afraid of Chelsea as she might be like her parents. I know how
he perceives Clinton but what are the facts? The single defining event
of the Clinton years was to out a group of shrill hatemongers.
Do you remember the parts about lowest unemployment, longest period of
growth, lower crime rates, higher SAT scores, lower welfare, lower teen
pregnancy? Bad sound bites. What we remember is "it's not about sex, its
about lying about sex."
Who doesn't lie about sex? You thought we'd not notice? We all lie about
sex. Even the sanctimonious GOP. So what? You thought its okay for you
to do it but not us? Stop.
Harping about Clinton's pardons only reminds us of Bush's pardons, and
Nixon's and Reagan's and Ford's and Washington's. All controversial but
only Clinton is crucified. It speaks more loudly about his enemies than
about him. Another 8 years of a Clinton? Derbyshire fears that his party
will come out looking like a bunch of hypocrites again? Cry me a river
but remind me to sell my stock near the end of Chelsea's term.
We needn't fear the Clintons. We need to fear the Derbyshires. Trust
me. There is something foul going on in this country and it has nothing
to do with the Clintons. In 1995 there was one hate site on the Internet.
Now there are over 500. I don't know about you but I'd much rather my
son be surfing the net looking for pictures of naked girls (or boys for
that matter) than for hate sites that advocate killing people. Ever hear
anyone worry/complain about hate sites? Besides Morris Dees? Neither have
Rush Limbaugh is on the air several hours a day, five days a week. He
doesn't talk about ideas, he talks about people. Vicious gossip. It would
be interesting if someone might weigh the pros and cons of some policy
issue instead of using it as a spring board to destroy its supporters
because you hate them. The level of public discourse in this country is
in serious trouble.
During the recount I got stranded away from home and computer. With no
print media and because the local news was consumed with some local scandal,
I was stuck with MSNBC and CNN in my hotel room. I was quickly repulsed
by watching MSNBC. The "anchor" did a demonstration of the punch ballot
system. He was babbling on about how it was impossible to leave a "dent",
or a "dimple" or "impregnate" a ballot. He put the ballot in a "voting
machine", made his choice, and pulled the ballot out, held it up to the
camera and said "see, it is impossible to not push the chad all the way
through." Finally, he looked at the ballot and noticed he'd left a dimple!
Incredulously he said (I'm not making this up) "it didn't happen this
way when we tried it before, this is really hard to do and I didn't even
intend to do this." And he quickly moved on. No analysis of what had happened
to his "demonstration". Didn't wonder for one second whether or not his
vote should have been counted or whether this is what the Democrats were
talking about all along. He got off message and he had NO idea what to
do. This was not the "line" he was trying to push.
All of a sudden I realized that this guy had neither a script nor a brain.
He'd been chosen because he was cute and buff. The female anchor was worse.
She wore glasses to make herself look studious but all she could say was
"honest, this is so confusing." She was the only one who was confused.
When it was all over I would have thought MSNBC would have taken a good
look at what happened and fired every airhead on staff.
No. As their ratings went down by two thirds they probably went looking
for cuter, buffer types. At that point I decided no one under 40 should
report the news.
Then I watched NBC, ABC, and CBS crucify Clinton over the pardons. They
were over 40. But they sounded more like Rush than Rush does. Sorry, I
don't get how pardoning a "fugitive" who is innocent is worse than pardoning
someone who was guilty. I'm on the wrong page I guess. It's like there
was a chapter in life I missed. Something about how if you are unjustly
hounded by a vindictive prosecutor who goes after you because your ex-wife
is a Democrat you have to stand up to him and risk being sent to prison
for the rest of your life rather than hang out in Heidi-land.
So for those of you who read the chapter I must have skipped, tell me
how it is that pardoning the man who will send YOU to prison is right?
There must be a Casper Weinberger footnote someplace. Is this like "come
back with your sword or on it"?
Sorry, too much testosterone in that analysis for me. And while I'm ranting,
I'm getting ready to spit, so listen up Derbyshire. Here's the subject
for your next column. You'll want to warn people about my son and advocate
his death. Ready? I hate Christians who hate. Now don't be a cutting me
short here. We didn't go after Ashcroft because he was a Christian. We
went after the smug, pious, creep because he hates. Yeah, we get it. We
know you good, white, Christian, crude, racist, homophobes are totally
pissed off because we think you should be civil and not trash people because
they are different from you.
We sort of rammed political correctness down your throats. I admit it.
No more racist jokes, no more cleaning your glasses on some young lady's
buttocks, no more gay slurs. Our mistake was thinking if we made you sound
civil we could think you were. What were we thinking? You just stopped
talking like human beings in polite company and found a bunch of "religious
scholars" who told you you could hate in church.
I propose we send them all t-shirts that say "Jesus told me to hate you"
and tell them they can come back out of the closet. Then move to Canada.
a friend about this article