Hello, MD Lilaqs.
WARNING: This response necessarily involves lots of politics. There is
some MOQ stuff in here, too.
David Buchanan wrote:
> I'll confess right up front that I did not vote
> for the President. I'd call myself something like a libertarian
> socialist.
I'd personally call you something like confused. Mutually exclusive
ideologies there, David.
> I know it seems contradictory.
Yup. See above.
> Basically, I think that social and intellectual values each have
> their place and the purpose of politics is to sort that
> out and guard what works best.
The purpose of politics is to exercise power.
> And I know it sounds corny, but I just love the U.S. constitution.
> Both the document itself and the form of government it proscribes is a stable > structure with flexibility and growth ability built right in. You could say the
> constitution has a great balance of static and dynamic qualities.
The Constitution is the social covenant that provides the stability that
allows the intellectual level to flourish in the US. It is supposed to
be largely static. Society can be dynamic as long as the basic rules are
observed.
> If the inorganic level values play into this issue at all, I can't see
> it. This may seem odd at first, but I dont think biological level values
> have much to do with it either.
Ol' Bill was exercising power on a purely social level. Biology had
little at all to do with it or he would have positioned Monica a little
more suitably for breeding.
> When Lila and the author had sex Pirsig
> described how those values were millions and billions of years old and
> how "he" just about disappeared as they asserted themselves. There is no
> doubt Clinton experienced the same take-over. Thats not really what is
> at issue. In fact the intimate acts are about the only thing all sides
> agree on.
Actually, I prefer to focus on the violation of the social contract, the
abuse of his power and the deminishment of the office he holds. I could
care less about the "intimate details" - that's between he and his wife.
And Monica.
> Clinton doesn't try to justify his behavior by
> intellectualizing or rationalizing that its ok to cheat on your wife. He
> does assert a right to privacy and that is an intellectual value.
> Privacy is not only a legal concept, but was discussed during the
> enlightenment in terms of its political and philosophical implications.
> It was deemed important enough to the framers of the constitution, who
> were all familiar with said discussions, to included as a basic right of
> every citizen.
I must have missed this in Civics class. Where in the world is a right
to privacy enumerated in the Constitution?
> The right to privacy is expressed in several of the first
> ten amendments, the bill of rights.
Not the Constitution I read.
> Privacy rights are the reason Linda Tripp's recordings were illegal.
Maryland law is the reason the Tripp recordings are illegal. According
to Federal law, she violated no law.
> (Lila is used to demonstate the other levels too. Lila and her pimp sort
> of represent the biological values. She was an adequate mother
> biologically, but not socially and intellectually. She was even a
> prostitute, literally getting cash value for her biological services.
> Rigel steps in with his Victorian moralizing, obviously and explicitly
> said to represent the social level values. To him Lila has no value,
> she's just an old whore.
Careful here, David. Rigel obviously values Lila. That's perfectly
obvious in Chapter 31. If he didn't, he wouldn't care.
> The author represents the intellectual level
> values, with his slips of paper and concern for Lila's karma and sanity
> over all else.)
Did you read the same book I read? Phaedrus is largely preoccupied with
Phaedrus. Even his decision to care for Lila was ego driven.
> I view the impeachment trial as a kind of ritual enactment of the entire
> culture war.
No argument here.
> I don't mean that in any scientific sense, of course. You
> can see it in all the players. On the one side is a bunch of
> conservative rich white men who are questioning a loose young woman, an
> intellectual jew and a rich, powerful black man.
Excuse me while I pound my head on the desk.
> Clinton's friends and lovers are the Klan's worst nightmare.
> That's why the right hate him so much.
Why is it that people like you equate conservatism with racism and
extremism? It is possible to have a difference of opinion with a
libertarian-socialist (snicker) and not be a religio-racist-fascist
zealot.
> I know the House prosecutors aren't exactly KKK, but the main
> players are all highly suspect. Bob Barr has given speeches to White
> supremacist groups, Trent Lott writes atricles for the newsletter of a
> Mississippi supremacist group, the seat vacated by Livingston is now
> sought by David Duke. Even the Chief Justice, who presides over the
> trial, is a former segregationist and fought civil rights legislation
> when he was a young law clerk.
Stunned disbelief. You seriously believe this?
> They all think Clinton is the embodiment
> of the free love, pot smoking, draft dodgeing, sixties hippie.
The first thing you've said that makes sense.
> Clinton says his ONLY enemy is "religious right-wing fundamentalism" and thinks
> of himself as an intellectual.
Clinton's biggest enemy is himself.
> (Check out the article about Clinton by
> Gabriel Garcia Marquez (sp?) in salon magazine. Its on-line and easy to
> find. You'll be amazed. )
Yeah, Salon is credible.
> The style of rhetoric they use in the proceedings reveals lots of social
> level values. Henry Hyde actually invoked the ten commandments and magna
> carta, saying that 5,000 years of civilization rode on the outcome of
> the trial.
Only the basis for English and American law and government. And to a
certain extent, it does.
> He and the other House prosecutors like to use phrases like
> "historic duty" and "sacred honor". I believe they have all invoked the
> name of "God". They've claimed all the war dead for their cause too.
> Not too legal or intellectual if you ask me. Oh, and don't forget about
> the poor innocent children who will be effected. The whole thrust of
> their language reveals what a bunch of "Rigels" they are, a bunch of
> Victorian moralizers.
No, they are actually trying to hold a social contract together in the
face of increasingly destructive pseudo-intellectual hedonism. The
President's rationalizations for lousy behavior hardly rise to the level
of "intellectual," unless you want to classify my teenage son's
rationalizations and justifications for not doing what he is supposed to
do as "intellectual."
> So intellectual level values say that Clinton's privacy rights are at
> issue. (I won't get into what is constitutionally impeachable and what
> isn't. This is already too long.) The social level values say that
> sexual morality and honesty are at issue.
Clinton was not impeached for having sex, whatever that means nowadays.
He was impeached for lying under oath and abusing the power of his
office. Clearly social, I'll grant.
> It's no accident that Pirsig points to civil disobedience, Ghandi and
> MLK as the good guys. Clearly he paints the NAZIs and Victorians as the
> bad guys. Although we may have sympathy for the values they hold, the
> "sin" is in asserting those values onto a higher level. It seems to me
> the House prosecutors, ken Starr and their cohorts are trying to assert
> morality where law belongs. The are asserting social values over
> intellectual values. They are the bad guys.
Without the firm base of the social level, there can be no development
of the intellectual level.
As an aside, Starr was granted authority by Clinton's own Justice
Department and the House prosecutors would not have had a whole lot to
say on the subject if Clinton had conducted himself appropriately and
with honor.
>
> Don't get me wrong, its also obvious that Clinton allowed biological
> values assert themselves where he needed to assert some social values.
> (Fidelity is more moral than sexual pleasure.)
Why?
> But its not much of a crime compared to the bombs he dropped.
Which would not have been dropped had he not been trying to deflect
attention from himself.
> If the House bad boys were really interested in moral leadership
> and the rule of law, they'd prosecute him for murder and terrorism.
If the partisans on the Democrats' side would do their duty instead of
their jobs, then Clinton would be history. End of problem.
Sorry about the politics, but he started it;-)
drose
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST