-----Original Message-----
From: Mary <mwittler@geocities.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 7:33 AM
Subject: MD: Clinton & the MOQ
Hi Fintan, David, Horse, Jason...
Fintan:
> Intriguing analysis that shows our human vision is a mental
> hologram centred in the pineal gland, in a single point. This
> implies that we
> live in morphogenic fields with a higher level than
electromagnetism as
> the medium of awareness.
That's not quite what I got out of it, Fintan, but the science is
fascinating. Could you explain about the morphogenic fields? I
haven't had a chance to read Sheldrake yet.
Moving to the Clinton discussion, I have a few thoughts on this eve
of his redemption I'd like to share. You see, I grew up in Arkansas
(Clinton's home state), and he was my Governor for several years
before I moved away. Don't ask me how he managed to get elected in
such a notoriously conservative state. I can only say that the past
20 years or so have seen a tremendous shift in the South away from a
solidly Democratic base to a solidly Republican one. It actually
goes back to the Civil War and has something to do with Republican
Yankee carpetbaggers. People in the south have carried this grudge
for over a century; only realizing lately that the modern version of
the Republican party is actually more in line with their conservative
leanings than the Democrats. Any Southerner could write an entire
book on this subject, so I'll stop there. Yes, as someone pointed
out, George Wallace was a Democrat, but that was then, this is now.
I always liked Clinton, and I wasn't alone. Everybody except those
with an axe to grind did too. He was young and dynamic and was an
excellent spokesperson for our lowly state. There were rumors
though. It was said (in the '70's) that he smoked marijuana that he
bought at a Little Rock tavern called The Whitewater (deja vu all
over again...). I frequented that establishment myself in those
days, but never once actually saw him there or met anyone who had.
I don't recall any rumours about womanizing at that time. Those
rumours came much later. He always seemed pretty smart to us. And
believe me, we needed a smart Governor. In case you're not up on
your national statistics, Arkansas consistently ranks 49th out of 50
on education, income and other civilized things. Our unofficial
motto was "Thank God for Mississippi!".
The main thing you could say about Clinton was that he could charm
the socks off the chair of the ladies auxiliary at the First Baptist
Church while at the same time pushing for abortion rights. It was
almost bazaar how he could do that - and still can do that today.
You see, my take on it is that some pretty large portion of the
American population is completely charmed by Bill Clinton. He can do
no wrong.
Logically, one would have thought the feminists would skewer him for
messing around with an intern; after all Clarence Thomas (Supreme
Court Justice) did practically the exact same thing with an employee
and is roundly hated by feminists to this day. But noooo, quite the
opposite has happened - and not just in the South either. He's got
both the social and intellectual levels, and perhaps the biological
as well sewed up in his hip pocket.
Pirsig says charm is a social level value. It goes hand in hand with
celebrity. Clinton screwed around with an intern, but so what?
Practically everybody in that huge teaming group of people who grew
up in the 60's and 70's either did or knows someone who did something
similar or something worse. To condemn him smacks of hypocracy to
them (ok, us), and hypocracy is the kiss of death to that generation.
We are on the side of intellect, remember?
But back to charm. The Republicans should have realized they were
fighting a losing battle right from the start. The economy is doing
great, we're not killing sons by the thousands in some far-off war,
and women love him. Nobody other than a strict ideologue wants to
get rid of him. Would Gore be better? No! No Charm! We've learned
(albeit after the fact) that most of our most charming, memorable and
beloved President's cheated on their wives too. Had our press and
moral climate been the same at the time, would be have impeached FDR
or Kennedy?
Fairness, another social level value, is at work here. In the past
decade or so we've come to learn all sorts of unsavory personal
details about other Presidents. Should Clinton be removed from
office when practically every other President of this century was
guilty of the same crimes? Is it fair that the press refused to
report it then but puts it on the front page now? Wouldn't most of
those other Presidents have denied it too? It is fair to punish the
one who happened to get caught when all the others got off scot-free?
It's a speeding ticket kind of logic. Fairness runs as deep in the
American psyche as charm or celebrity, while abstract indignation
(another social level value) has lost it's grip. For those wishing
to convict, the deck was stacked against them from the start. This
was never a social vs intellectual level battle, if it were Clinton
would probably be out of office tonight. Instead, it was a Victorian
social level vs Hippie social level battle; and the Hippies
outnumbered the Victorians.
My best to all,
Mary
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Hi Mary,
I read your last post and I am afraid that I am a little lost here. I was just wondering how fairness is a social level? I am not passing a judgement, or challenging your view. I just thought that fairness would be an intellectual value. In other words isn't fairness really an intellectual idea that is Applied by a social group of biological people, who are made up of inorganic parts?
Thanks,
Jason Nelson
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