On Thu, 24 Sep 98 17:58:12 GMT, w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink) wrote:
>In article <3609d415.0@208.192.224.3>,
> "Jim" wrote:

>>Maybe minding your own business is part of civility. Why do think
>'mericans
>>should give a rat's ass about the Dutch opinion polls and/or a French
>>petition signed by some sort of "well known" international liberals who'd
>>like nothing more than to tell everyone else how to live.

>You can't have it both ways....either be leader of the free world, and
>listen to others, or stay deaf mute and blind inside your own country.
>Global players have global counterparts. And those global counterparts are
>not laughing at Clinton, they are lauging at the sick morals of the
>American people, selling porn as democracy/politics/justice, while at the
>same time going hysteric over a breast-feeding woman in public, or nudity
>on beaches. That is the staggering hypocrasy everyone abroad sees, not a
>Clinton who tries to cover up an affair.

Well said! (And the long standing ovation Clinton recently received
at the UN may just be an indication of what world leaders think of
Clinton, a president that has approached opposing leaders as equals,
and has attempted to find with them, instead of trying to impose on
them, solutions that can work to bring peace - but the thoughtless,
quick-solution, conservative-types will see this only as "weakness",
or "failure to assert the power of the US", or some such nonsense...)
Alas, you are arguing with those who are close-minded and
short-sighted, and therefore unable to argue very intelligently...
(and, yes, these folks would view public nudity as "immoral", but
would not see imprisoning 1% of the population [a majority from an
easily-identified minority of the population...] as immoral; nor
would they see as immoral corporation CEO's drawing yearly salaries
and bonuses in the millions while they cut back their work force,
try to avoid paying very well those who remain, try to move
facilities to countries with low-paid workers without unions, and
try to take advantage of behind-the-scenes stock information; nor
would they see as immoral a society that is very rich, yet allows
extreme poverty and a lack of universal medical coverage to exist;
nor would they notice their own distaste for, and attempts to
withhold basic civil rights from, sexual-minorities as immoral...).
I remember when "conservative" properly described backward Southern
senators, and "liberal" described people who attempted to be open and
imaginative in solution-finding - our best and brightest politicians.
Now, conservatives have managed to give the word "liberal" (whose
base word, BTW, means "free", as in "liberty"...) a bad taste, while
elevating "conservative" ("know-nothingism"...;-) to being a
desirable label... Such is progress (and the real deception
going on here...). BTW, for those interested, there IS a reasonably
speedy solution to this silly mess: GET OUT AND VOTE FOR A
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS ON NOVEMBER 3RD - otherwise you
are likely to see this sordid "Re-Bublican" extravaganza extend for
another couple of years, at least... (Anyone looking for a 300mm
f2.8 EDIF Nikkor in really nice condition...? ;-)