I am a C-Span junkie, which is to say that I’m more inclined to watch an entire hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee than catch the soundbites on the evening news.I believe in sin—which I acknowledge is a bit odd since I am still “on the fence” about the existence of God. I think the concept of sin is a necessary device for society because it allows us to all share the sentiment of disgust about certain acts. I define sin as “the act of doing something fucked-up on purpose.”My father would vehemently disagree with my definition, I suspect—on two grounds. #1, he would NEVER use the term “fucked-up” to describe it. We wouldn’t argue that point in person, because I use as little profanity as possible in his presence out of respect for him and the way he has chosen to live his life. #2, his definition of sin is “the transgression of God’s law,” which is the 10 Commandments.I struggle with his definition because I think the 10 specific rules leave out a LOT of stuff that he would then call sin—like homosexuality. (Stay with me, this is headed somewhere.)Growing up Christian (Seventh-day Adventist to be precise) I was taught that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. I certainly don’t believe that, but if it IS true, it creates conundrums of all sorts. [Is a gay couple who concedes that happiness they get from their lifestyle, which is fucked-up in the eyes of others, is worth paying whatever consequences it demands really riding as fast a sin wagon as a mass murderer?] Which brings me to the unresolved conflict that’s happening in my head today.Ex-President William Jefferson Clinton turns 60 today. Happy birthday. One of C-Span’s Washington Journal questions today dealt with how we as citizens should view his presidency. It generated the Republican vs. Democrat responses that you should expect as a viewer of a call in political discussion show in the current political age.For those of you who’ve tuned out news altogether because it’s a constant cycle of Jon- Benet Ramsey, OJ Simpson, and donkeys and elephants arguing over the mundane … here’s the short version.Republican: Bill Clinton is a despicable man who disgraced the Oval Office and the Presidency. The economy did well under his leadership because of the Republican Congress, and the policies established under his predecessor. Al Quaida declared war against America on his watch and he did nothing about it. He is a stain on American history. George W. Bush is God’s man of the moment. He isn’t terribly articulate, but without his leadership we would face daily terrorist attacks. He’s an old-school cowboy who understands that you have to meet force with force, which isn’t always pretty. But if you really love this country, you understand that he’s protecting America and will support him.Democrat: George W. Bush is a moron who didn’t know anything about the world at large before he became President of its most powerful nation. He was right to go into Afghanistan to clear out the Taliban, since they wouldn’t turn over Bin Ladin; but Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. He lied about the weapons of mass destruction intentionally. He’s a war monger who’s lining the pockets of his friends by creating war without end, and his actions have led more than 25,000 American young people to the loss of life or limb. Bill Clinton was an articulate representative of common political sense. He worked hard for the little people, built the strongest economy ever, balanced the budget, and stared down Newt Gingrinch and the Contract with America lunacy. He had an unfortunate dalliance inappropriately with an intern in the Oval Office, but his sexual proclivity shouldn’t necessarily taint his Presidential legacy. He was wrongly impeached by a Congress that hated him. He couldn’t do much about terrorism because every time he tried to make a military move, he was accused of “wagging the dog” and trying to distract America from his promiscuous behavior.Hmmmm…..The discussion got me to thinking. Which usually gets me to writing. Which brings us here.I’m a moderate Independent. Politically, that’s exactly the same as being an agnostic. We live in a tiny little room, where we play referee … since we can’t get into the game.Politically analyzing the situation is pretty easy for someone with my views. Both men are sinners, but the consequences of their individually fucked-up acts, done on purpose in both cases, aren’t having very similar impacts on world society.What Bill Clinton did, by encouraging and accepting a series of blowjobs and other sexual acts IN HIS OFFICE, was reprehensible on a dozen levels. It DID disgrace the Oval Office. There should be some places that are sacred because of their function. Imagine your Pastor spending a Tuesday night getting a blowjob on the pulpit. Isn’t that just … wrong? I mean, whether he gets caught or not isn’t really the issue. Isn’t it a desecration of the function of a pulpit? Doesn’t the fact that he will stand there on the weekend, and hopefully decry sin in all its various and sundry forms mean that he SHOULDN’T be using it as the venue for the satisfaction of his manly desires? Of course it does. This is what motels are for. The pulpit should be a place of innocence. I would argue he’d be just as wrong to plan a bank robbery, or beat his wife on the pulpit. ALL of those would be despicable acts, made even … WRONGER … by his choice of location to carry them out. There is no excusing it, there are no acceptable explanations, and frankly, I don’t think he should be allowed the opportunity to rationalize his behavior. It should be a punishable crime, and he should be shunned by decent folk for his sin. The Oval Office is the place from which my country speaks most forcefully. It’s where the decisions about which of our bills will be laws of the land without a Congressional fight are made. It’s where we receive the leaders of other nations on decidedly unequal ground. It’s where the conversations about whom we’ll fight, and who we’ll choose more diplomatic means happens. It’s where policy thought happens. It is NOT a boudoir, it’s not a strip club, it’s not a “by the hour” motel. It’s not the appropriate place to take your Mistress, with or without your wife’s consent. It’s MY office. It’s YOUR office. It’s OUR office. It’s one of America’s pulpits. Under NO circumstances, without my approval, is it the appropriate site for some guy’s Cytherean trysts with the hired help. That’s just nasty. It’s wrong. It’s … well, it’s fucked up.On a different level, it’s stupid. Forget Hillary, forget the marriage, forget Chelsea, forget that this guy was a “family man.” I’m not proud to say so, but lots of men cheat on their families. That’s also wrong, but irrelevant for the discussion of this particular man. How his family deals with his actions is a discussion for a separate forum. My topic today is Clinton as President. So here’s a question for the topic: “Shouldn’t he have known … as he was getting his Johnson smoked by the semi-nude girl just a couple of years older than his daughter in MY Oval Office … that there was a chance he’d get caught? I’ve had sex in a few “public” places … and it was always on MY mind in the moment. As President, wouldn’t he have been … AWARE of the potential consequences? Didn’t he KNOW … AS THE BLOWJOB was happening … that if Congress ever got hold of the video, that it would make it MUCH harder for him to get his agenda through? Of course he did. He’s a politician. It’s part of the job description to be constantly aware of how ALL of your deeds, seen and unseen, could affect your political viability. There is NO WAY … even in mid Max Headroom, to not be “aware” that hey … “this could go badly for me.”Of course he knew. Of course he was aware. But he told her to suck on, anyway. This my friends … is sin. A fucked-up act; in this case … getting head under MY desk … done on purpose.Now, how do we position this sin in the appropriate context of the man’s accomplishments? Here … is where it gets tricky.Aside from his sin, there is general agreement that Bill Clinton was not a BAD President. (That’s how we have to couch it to get the general agreement, lol). We can’t debate whether or not he was a “good” President. That’s not how it’s done. The question is … “Was Bill Clinton a bad President?” Most Republicans will even concede that the answer is no. They will insist on an asterisk for the blowjobs, which they are WELL within their rights to do. They will then add that he lied about it … which wasn’t a sin in my view, because … well, how the devil would you EXPECT him to behave? Of COURSE he lied about it. Duh. Having already committed the sin, I would’ve lied about it too. Once the nut is spent, and my obvious stupidity hits me in the instant after, I’d have thought up the best story I could, and rode it till the wheels fell off. Which he did. The lying to the Grand Jury wasn’t a sin … that was a crime; which is completely different. Impeachment was the appropriate penalty for it, and he paid that penalty. This combination of sins and crimes makes it hard to put him in the Great President fraternity. But it doesn’t erase his other accomplishments, either. Which brings us to Mr. Bush II. Not to be confused with his father, who is alleged to have cheated on Barbara … but not in the Oval Office. His sin is a bit murkier to me. He told lies to get what he wanted—war. It’s fucked up because to date, thousands of people have died as a result. To me, the discussion about his intelligence borders on the irrelevant. Once you make a decision, your intellect is no longer at issue. There is only the consequence of your actions. Many a moron has made a decision that resulted in brilliant outcomes. But that original lie … was fucked up. I suspect that in years to come, there will be dozens of books and articles about the pervasiveness of this particular deception. Time will eventually tell us a LOT more about what has happened in the Oval Office since the infamous blowjob. Already, I believe that it’s been used to hatch a series of lies that have resulted in people I know losing their lives.Without belaboring that point, it leads to my conclusion … and question. Are all sins equal? You tell me.
(originally posted 19 Aug 06)
No comments:
Post a Comment