Let's talk politics!

The Big Lewinsky, MonicaGate, whatever cute name the media is using today... Does it all matter? In the grand scheme of things, no. Clinton, of course, is an idiot in this regard. First, no piece of ass (especially Monica Lewinsky!) is worth screwing up being president. Second, if he had just said, Yeah, I slept with her, so what? everyone would have shut up and it would have been over with.

But he didn't. So some people are crying Foul! and want him ousted. Why? Because he lied about his sex life. Who doesn't? Do you know anyone who actually says, Yeah, I call 900 numbers all the time or Check out this really hot adult web site I found last night! Our society, right or wrong (wrong), has simultaneously placed a giant taboo on openly discussing or -- heaven forbid! -- having sex and demanding that everyone be sexy and successful in sexual conquests.

But he lied! people cry! How can we trust him from now on, knowing that he lied to the American people? You mean you trusted him before hand? Wanna buy a bridge? There's an old joke that asked how you tell when a politician is lying; the answer is that his mouth is open. Politicians lie. Duh. They lie to us, to each other, to other countries. Get over it.

Still, he's a laughing stock around the world! No other government will want to work with him or take him seriously, you say? Take a look around you. Other countries have more important things to worry about than Clinton's sex life. I hate to tell you this, but the American press and public are the laughing stock.

Surely, such a man cannot be a good diplomat or conduct business with other nations, right? Are you serious? The man stuck his cigar up her twat and said, with a straight face, that they didn't have "sex". Can you think of a better person to handle international negotiations? The man is a fantastic weasel, slippery as they come, and that's what makes him a good president.

But he's a terrible roll model. Who will provide our children with someone to look up to, if not the president? Come on, you want your children to pattern their lives after politicians? What hay wagon did you fall off of? Doug Englebart, Jerry Garcia, Mother Theresa, these are people to look up to. Politicians are not. The very sort of people who make good roll models are the very sort of people who make lousy politicians. The last "good" man we had as a president was Jimmy Carter. A wonderful man. A dear, sweet, *good* man. And a lousy president.

So really, it's all pretty silly. The media loves it because it gives them a delightful circus with which to entertain the ignorant masses, while not requiring the reporters to venture into dangerous areas (except, perhaps, Washington D.C.) The ignorant masses people love it, because it gives them something to argue about over their beers and gin-and-tonics, and everyone loves to hate politicians. The Republicans love it because it's a chance to smear dirt all over a democrat who otherwise was doing a pretty good job.

But once again, we seem to have a situation wherein the politicians are ignoring the desires and even the well-being of their constituents and forging on ahead with their own agendas. The last election seemed to make a clear statement -- to everyone except the politicians -- that the people didn't want to make a big deal about it and wanted, instead, to get on with their lives. Furthermore, all the experts I've heard think that if Clinton is ousted, our economy will go down the toilet, much like Japan and Russia's have. But none of that is more important than swatting Clinton for being stupid -- for being human.

Personally, I'm stocking up canned goods and ammunition for when they kick Clinton out. Who cares about the Y2K bug -- We've got Congress!

In Bosnia, Milosevic has decided that the he doesn't like the people who ran successfully for office in the recent popular elections. He therefore is ignoring the fact that Bosnians voted them into office. In America, Clinton, Wilson, and Lundgren have decided they don't like the idea of people making use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, so they're ignoring the fact that Californians voted to make it legal. Am I the only one to see a parallel here?

He spent three hours ranting and raving about gays and how they were undermining the integrity of the country, upsetting our morals, and destroying his life personally, even though he'd never actually met a homosexual.

I'm not interested in members of the same sex, but I have no problem with those who are. (More women for me!) I really don't understand those who feel somehow wronged simply because someone somewhere prefers homosexuality to heterosexuality. I am, however, quite convinced, as the anecdote above shows, that virtually all people who lack sexual (or other) tolerance are just plain stupid.

Now, I'm sure someone somewhere would like to meet me in a back alley somewhere to "discuss" my above remarks, but then that would only prove my point, now, wouldn't it?

As far as I can tell, the United States military complex is not intended to be a sexually-oriented pleasure club. It is supposed to be an organization of combat-ready people, prepared to defend the United States (and its oil supply) against the threat of invasion, terrorism, or reduced profits for the oil companies.

Therefore, I fail to see what a person's sexual preferences has to do with their performance in combat. So long as they are able to accomplish their assigned tasks, it really shouldn't matter whether they sleep with men, women, or vegetarian pizzas. Saying that because someone enjoys sex with someone of the same gender they are not good soldiers, is like saying that because someone collect stamps, they would make a lousy lawyer. It just doesn't make sense.

Personally, I think any group of people who would want to be like the french (or at least what we think of the french) has got some real issues they need to deal with.

Fortunately, that's not the way the government works. I'd be afraid that if he were to be elected president, he come up with his ideas of how things ought to be, and then when congress ignored him and the courts overruled him, he'd get all upset and walk out on the whole mess.

Abortion is not the problem; it is only a symptom. Fighting over whether or not it should be legal is like arguing whether to use cloth or paper towels to clean up spilt motor oil. The problem is the spilt oil, not whether cloth towels are better for the environment.

Similarly, unwanted pregnancies are the real problem, not abortion. Stop the pregnancies, and abortion becomes a moot point (for the most part.) This means, more (and better) sex education and easier access to contraceptives.

And for the record, abortion should be legal.

"...if they can get our children to think like Californians the whole country would be better off"

I still wouldn't vote for him. Not only does he look like the bad guy from a '70s action show (Vegas, Hart to Hart, etc.), he's a close- minded little rat who would be a disaster for Montana's school systems, and he uses the <Blink> tag. But take a look for yourself, and consider whether or not he might think your kid to be one of those "disruptive" students that should be barred from school.