On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:55:56 -0800 "Sarah Thompson" <sthompson162

Ooh! A response at last! And just when I had told myself it was time to go back to being a good, nonpolitical, B7 only, avoid-the-current-references-[especially-conservative-issues-ones], little girl!

I would also like to point out in our defense that there has been vast improvement in this regard over the past eight years, under the Clinton administration, which IMO is precisely why the Republicans hate Clinton with such a crazed passion that they have to make up wild lies about him, such as we've recently heard from Ellynne

And fighting words! A statement that cries out so loudly for response, I can't justify _not_ answering! Oh, frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Be still my beating heart!!!

I have to admit right off, one of the reasons I usually know better than to get off on certain topics (anyone who disagrees on whether I know better may be right, but I will cling to the idea) is because I can't avoid discussing them without becoming overly sarcastic.

Besides, I don't think this is what anyone's reading the lyst for. I apologize.

That said . . . .

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, lies are things that are _not true_. In B7, this would be like the charges Blake was convicted under.

OTOH, things that are _true_ that you do not _consider important_ or that you think _aren't worthy of notice_ are _not_ lies - at least, not in the dictionary of those of us who don't have to ask the judge what "is" means. So, Travis massacring thousands of civilians was inconvenient but true. Servalan murdering people for personal convenience was, in her opinion, also unimportant, but true. See the difference?

It's funny you should bring up things like "crazed passion" and "wild lies." I love it. How very Federationish of you. Let's not admit the faintest possibility that I or anyone else with a different opinion than yours or the administration might be an intelligent, rational human being. After all, if I had to defend Clinton (or Servalan, or Travis, or anyone else like that), I would do everything I could to keep the facts out of it, too.

Let's look at the rape charge. Did he do it? Maybe, maybe not. You're probably getting ready to cite the false charges against Blake. But there's a difference. Like many such cases, it comes down to his word against hers. Now, while Hillary seems to believe republicans have the power to implant false memories in thousands of people (even Clinton's own secretary), this is a technology which seems limited to SF shows at this point.

So, let's look at him and her.

Him: A guy his supporters admit will lie with cold blooded premeditation while under oath if the truth looks bad. In their defense, they often accompany this with such bold additions as "Duh!" or the more articulate "Everybody does it."

Her: Someone they haven't been able to come up with an explanation why she would lie. She actually supports his party and all that.

Hmm, I suppose I can see why Clinton's defenders think anyone who doesn't like him _must_ by lying. After all, if they themselves would lie about anyone they don't like, by shouldn't everyone else?

Oh, but let's not get into the perjury thing, since Clinton finally admitted it (three years of denial [and how many taxpayer dollars spent proving it?] later). What else might I dislike him for?

How about (since I've lived in the far east) China? Clinton accepted illegal campaign contributions. This is on the list of _known_ facts, a point no longer in debate. And, to give the man credit, once he was bought, he stayed bought (which puts him ahead of Servalan - but maybe the Chinese kept tapes).

Not only that, he has sat back and ignored numerous human rights violations (forced abortions, infanticide, massacres in Tibet, etc.) and violations of our own national security. Oh, and let's not forget his outrage over the wrongful case against a certain Los Alamos worker, an outrage that came the day after a judge ordered the man released. Up until then, Clinton seemed to want to get the guy nailed (I _think_ because dear Mr. Equality thought it would be easier to blame an ethnic Chinese, but I may be doing him an injustice. He may have sincerely felt the man was the best scapegoat regardless of ethnic background).

But how about Taiwan? I knew a girl from Taiwan who said, "Our president says we should help protect Americans." Then she paused and looked at me earnestly, "So, what can I do to protect you?"

Clinton sold her out. He doesn't care about her. If China were to annex Taiwan, if she were to fall under a regime that would _force_ her to abort any children it deems unnecessary, he wouldn't care. If she were to become one of the many women sold into the back country as either a wife or prostitute, he wouldn't care. If her family was deemed 'politically incorrect' and she was sent to a reeducation camp or simply killed, he wouldn't care.

Yes, I'm making the obvious B7 reference of Maryatt's wife and children.

Clinton says he cares about the environment. Does he? The first National Monument he created was in Utah, the only state where he came in third. It bought him votes in southern California. Did he really care about the environment in southern California? That same week, there were major protests as an area of virgin redwood forest was cut down. Clinton did nothing about that and said nothing about that

Here's the kicker. I actually have some sympathy for the Grand Staircase - but not the way he did it. I have these funny ideas about _democracy_ and the voice of the people that Clinton has always found outre. The fact that Clinton (oh, darn, here's that word again) lied when asked if he was planning to do anything like this a few days before he announced it (something his aids later [and in complete contradiction of the public record] referred to as fully discussing the details with representatives from that state for over a month [man, if I could have gotten away with this kind of thing on _my_ history tests . . .). If it had been done with even a pretense of respect for the people whose lives it effected, I might support it. Of course, it also would have been nice if Clinton and co. had bothered to look at any maps of the area so that they hadn't listed some people's driveways as public lands that couldn't be driven on or come to the interesting conclusion working oil wells were undeveloped territory, but he did stop poor ranchers from using land they had made use of for over a hundred years, so let's give him credit.

Right, let's think of Horizon. Remember, it is the duty of the more enlightened to rescue the land from the poor savages who can't make proper use of it.

Oh, you'll say, but the Federation's version of enlightenment involved killing off the natives in droves to mine radioactive materials.

Funny you should mention that.

Unfortunately, southern Californians have not managed to get upset over this, but Utah is one of the nation's top dumping grounds for toxic waste. Has Clinton done anything about it?

No.

Uranium processing plants that didn't even bother to put up a 'No Swimming' sign by the water hole they dumped their waste in before letting children who played in the area die of cancer?

Not interested.

The thousands of people who died of cancer from nuclear testing? Or cleaning up the land in areas where (if you don't care about the people) endangered turtles and other animals live? What about other, more current military 'accidents' involving the release of poisonous chemicals and other toxins?

Nothing.

Unless you count his efforts to reroute military jobs to states that _voted_ for him.

When congress finally voted to give small compensations to a small number of downwinders meeting very narrow definitions, did he do anything to help make the funds available?

I need to answer this one?

Hint: Remember the 100 million credits Servalan offered to pay for Orac?

Oh, and just to point out that Clinton, true to form, is an equal opportunity callous pig, let me add that the people with the highest death rate who get lumped in with the downwinders in laws and studies are the predominantly Navajo miners who worked in guess what kind of mines?

Let's get this straight. Clinton has _never_ done anything that endangers votes or campaign contributions. He has lived and died by the poll.

What gets me is that I used to make sarcastic statements like "these people would support him even if he" [fill in the blank], that I thought were hyperbole. They he did. And they did. I feel like Vila saying Servalan's idea of a fair fight is shooting a blind man in the back.

Oh, yeah. She did that.

I thought I was safe when I said he'd sell out his own mother for a five point lead in the polls. I mean, she was dead, so how could he?

Less than two weeks later, Hillary was explaining to the nation how all Billy's problems are his mother's fault but they're working on them.

Well, I suppose Servalan blamed all the Federation's problems on the past administration. And it wouldn't surprise if her parents were wacko. And dead.

Actually, in Clinton's case, I can believe it. An unstable childhood marked by frequent parental turnover along with some other problems, it sounds like he was in a prime environment to become one of those people with a major need to _look_ good to others, to earn the surface approval of lots of people you would cheerfully stab in the back.

Oh, and as to Sarah's insinuation of racial prejudice. I will be generous and compare her to Avon. I think one of the reasons Avon so frequently put Jenna's support of Blake down to her _personal_ liking of him was precisely because he had a certain grudging respect for her opinions. To put it down to something rational wouldn't have let him dismiss it they way he could dismiss Gan's or Vila's opinions.

What can I say? The circular reasoning here seem's irrefutable. People who dislike Clinton must be bigots. I dislike him, ergo . . . .

Shall I refer to American Indian relatives (by marriage, by step-relations, or even [oh, yeah] by blood)? How about the African American ones? Is Hispanic OK? What about Japanese? Should a relative of mine have attended a church that was bombed because of certain prejudices in that area? Do I have to have ancestors who fled an area because of the government having, oh, let's say, signed an order for their, what do you call it, _extermination_ if I want to be listened to?

Sarah, how do you know I don't?

And, if all the above were true, why wouldn't I despise a man who was always willing to sell out any group he didn't need to advance his own cause?

OK, impassioned rant is over. I apologize again. I promise to be better for at least a whole week.

Assuming I don't see a post I _really_ have to answer.

Perhaps I _should_ be a little less judgemental of those with socially unacceptable behaviors, given my own very evident weakness.

My thanks in advance to everyone still speaking to me after this is posted.

Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.