Shaving With Occam's Razor

Top 8. May 15, 1998 1:46 PM

» JoelG - Rick - Judging by your comments, we would be friends, or at

Rick -

Judging by your comments, we would be friends, or at least political allies. Let's not argue, okay? smile

Let me be more explicit what I meant. I agree 100% that morality and character does matter, especially in the highest office in the land. Private character is still the best indicator of public action. Your Washington quote is good...I also especially like the Teddy Roosevelt quote that has been going around lately.

However, I am also a pragmatist. I want Clinton gone, because I believe he is a stain on our national honor. However, in 1998 America, something less than 50% of (active, voting) America seems to feel the same way you and I do. With the media staunchly in Clinton's camp, we're never going to win the battle on the grounds of sexual misconduct. Since the '60s the claim that "everyone's doing it" can be said with enough truth to make people squirm.

My point is this: let's not let the nightly news frame this as a sexual issue (as they are intent on doing.) Yes, if there was nothing else, we could and should impeach Clinton for his sexual misconduct, since the Founders did make provision for impeachment for something less than a felony. However, with all the felonies lieing around waiting for us to pick them up, why bother? The possibility of treason, murder and financial malfeasance may not be as titillating as oral sex in the Oval Office, but the media will have a much harder time skewing it as an "everybody does it" issue.

Now, if we can just get them to say anything about it at all...

/Joel

-- posted by JoelG

Top 9. May 15, 1998 7:32 PM

» Gottlieb - Treason and murder, Joel? You're reaching here, and starting

Treason and murder, Joel?

You're reaching here, and starting to sound like pathological Clinton-haters like Chris Ruddy and Richard Mellon Scaife. The incredible and utter lack of evidence for either of these crimes is astounding, and an investigation of 4 years and $40 million (of our tax money) speaks for this.

The reason the media focuses on oral sex with an intern is that such, while having a similar lack of evidence, is at least plausible.

Jason Gottlieb

Politics -- East Asia...This week: Philippine Elections

My homepage

-- posted by Gottlieb

Top 10. May 15, 1998 7:59 PM

» SteveK - Frank: I agree with Jered that your use of Occam's Razor was

Frank:

I agree with Jered that your use of Occam's Razor was unjustified.

However, in the spirit of your (mis)application, I think a far simpler explanation is possible. The Scaife family foundations are spending millions of dollars to smear the president. They hire attack dog after attack dog after attack dog to go after him. After six years of smearing, the best they can prove is one affair that he lied about. But the Big Lie technique has an effect on the public. After all, Hitler said it best in Mein Kampf: "A good lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been refuted."

So now the public is thinking, "Where's there's smoke, there's gotta be fire." Or we could take Representative Burton's howling piece of illogic: "If I could only prove 10 percent of these charges, he'd be outta there." Forget the fact that Scaife is generating these charges at a geometric rate.

And as far as simplicity goes, it is much simpler to believe that none of the charges have stuck because they are not true, rather than to believe that there is a "vast liberal conspiracy" that successfully lies, explains, evades and manipulates the gullible media at every step and turn.

Keep in mind I am no defender of Clinton. Burton was right: he is a scumbag. But not for the reasons Republicans lie about.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 11. May 16, 1998 4:00 PM

» SteveK - Addendum to my last post: I'm really amused by the Republican

Addendum to my last post:

I'm really amused by the Republican's massive self-deception on this whole thing. They want so desperately to prove that Clinton is unethical in the way that Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush were unethical. Let's not forget what Republican scandals were about:

Nixon: Created "CREEP," or the Committee to Re-Elect the President. This included ex-CIA men E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, ex-FBI man G. Gordon Liddy and numerous Cubans who had participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion. CREEP laundered illegal campaign contributions, wiretapped political opponents, spied on and infiltrated Democratic groups, harrassed and disrupted Democratic operations (my favorite: ordering hundreds of pizzas to be delivered to Democratic meetings), sabotaged political opponents -- and this was before the cover up and obstruction of justice. Not to mention Nixon's other crimes, like conducting secret wars, ordering the CIA to assassinate and overthrow Chile's Allende, etc.

Ford: Pardoned Nixon rather than let justice run its course. Widely viewed as the deal he made to become Vice President.

Reagan: Iran-Contra. Despite Reagan's tough talk against terrorists, Reagan sells arms to Iran, diverting the money to fund a secret and illegal war in Central America. In his attempt to overthrow the domestically popular government of Nicaragua, Reagan arms the Contras, the remnants of Nicaragua's old National Guard. This was the brutal police force of right-wing dictator Samoza, who tortured and murdered political dissidents, cracked down on free speech and crushed labor unions. Reagan's secret war violated Congress's Boland Amendments, which prohibited all military aid to the Contras. Not only did this trample on the Constitution, but during the Iran/Contra hearings, Ollie North was found to have prepared a contigency plan that called for suspending the U.S. constitution and imposing martial law in the U.S. -- if domestic political opposition ever reached 1960's proportions again.

Bush: Walsh's independent counsel found strong suggestive evidence that Bush was "in the loop" during Iran/Contra, even though Bush insisted he had missed all the important meetings. Bush then went on to pardon all the major convicted felons associated with Iran/Contra, on Christmas eve, when news consumption is at its lowest point of the year.

Now, contrast all this to Clinton's alleged crimes:

1. Lost money in a 17-year old land deal.

2. May have crudely propositioned a state employee.

3. Had an affair.

4. May have had phone sex with a White House intern.

Let me reiterate that Clinton's shenanigans are no different from those of past presidents. I could provide a long, entertaining and even bizarre and kinky history on this subject, including such notables as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan. Oh, by the way, Nixon was impossibly straight in his sex life. Not a hint of scandal.

Let me remind Frank that Reagan had over 100 upper level officials convicted of felonies. Clinton, six years into his presidency, has had only one.

Republicans, I think, are merely weary of all the scandals they were forced to endure, all the charges of immorality, lapse of ethics, anti-constitutional behavior and criminal wrong-doing. They know how such scandals can paralyze their presidencies, so they are obsessed with getting even, which explains their constant barrage of accusations. I think, like any human, Clinton's done some wrong things. But his pecadillos don't begin to compare to the constitutional crises of Nixon, Reagan and Bush.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 12. May 17, 1998 2:59 AM

» SteveK - Rick and Joel: Your insistence that we find perfect humans to

Rick and Joel:

Your insistence that we find perfect humans to administer our government is incredibly naive.

Every great advance in human society was an institutional one, not a human evolutionary one. Human nature has remained the same for 200,000 years, and most people are cynical that human nature, greed and self-interest can ever be changed or perfected. The only things that have changed in our society are our ideas and the institutions that represent them.

For example, the American Revolution was such an advance in government not because our Founding Fathers ruled so wisely (although they were certainly wise men), but because they created a democratic system of checks and balances. Slavery was abolished not because the hearts of slave-owners changed, but because government outlawed it. The United States is the number one producer in the world not because Americans have a higher work ethic and work load (the struggle for survival in the Third World is much more demanding), but because they have the efficient business systems, machines and computers that greatly accelerate their work.

In fact, science is a perfect example of this principle; in science, ideas matter most, and scientists couldn't care less if they come from people who hide scandals, have character problems, lack charisma or leadership, or have too little or too much testosterone. These things are simply irrelevant. Einstein was not renounced as a scientist because he was divorced, unkempt, radical and didn't believe in the Biblical God. Rather, it was his ideas that made him a great scientist.

With this in mind, we can see how backward our nation actually has it. We keep looking for the perfect president to save the nation from its troubles, and he never comes. Our election campaigns are swamped with personal attacks, mud-slinging and character assassinations, but little about the issues and structural theories that are actually responsible for progress. In fact, candidates actively try to avoid issues and theory. Newt Gingrich flatly refused to discuss issues in the 94 election: "I don't want to give [the Democrats] a single thing to distort and expand into an attack." (Time, November 7, 1994)

Rick provides a George Washington quote claiming that morality is the foundation of our government. However, Thomas Jefferson lampooned that idea in his First Inaugural Address, noting the impossibility that we could find "angels in the forms of kings to govern." Jefferson, who was far smarter than Washington, recognized that it was our republican form of government that made us better, not "angels in the form of kings."

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 13. May 17, 1998 3:19 AM

» SteveK - The following intellectual exercise is revealing: Imagine a p

The following intellectual exercise is revealing:

Imagine a president who is a child-molester. Further imagine that he proposed a law that made child-molesting legal. Consider the different success rates he would enjoy if he were a dictator, versus if he were a President facing a Congress hostile to his warped sexuality. This little exercise should clearly demonstrate the irrelevancy of a president's character foibles in a properly designed democracy.

Joel and Rick might then argue that a child-molesting president would be trying to do everything he could to get the law passed on the sly, or would be ordering the FBI to kidnap kids for his personal use, or would be pardoning major child-offenders. But again, a properly designed democracy would prevent all this. Laws should be open, not closed, to public scrutiny; the FBI should not be the president's personal tool; and pardoning major child-offenders should risk easy impeachment. The fact is that no single person in government should have enough power to see his own personal foibles enacted into law. That is why there are checks and balances.

At this point, I would challenge Rick and Joel to explain just why they think individuals have so much power in government. Especially a figurehead as meaningless as the president.

I would also challenge them to explain why they do not hold private business executives up to the same standards of morality. Business executives have just as many deep effects on society as government officials. Why the double standard? Why don't we lambaste CEO's for their extramarital affairs? My guess is, conservatives have simply not thought about it, like most things.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 14. May 17, 1998 9:42 AM

» RickR - My Lord Steve, can you babble on. If anyone wanted to take the t

My Lord Steve, can you babble on. If anyone wanted to take the time to examine what you say the only thing they'd find is, more often than not, you refute yourself without any outside help.

We recognise that you believe all good flows from a system that is composed of people who are, according to you, "corporate whores." That you will ignore the facts, possibly because you have no experience in real life. And, will characterize anyone who opposes you as a Republican, despite their political affiliations. As to your "challenges":
A) Why do I think individuals have so much power in government? Don't particularily, never said I did. They embody a certain potential for power in the right circumstances.
B) Why don't I hold private business executives to the same standards of morality. But I do, and vote stock I hold accordingly.

Now I challenge you to explain what this irrelevent nonsense has to do with what we were discussing.

Rick

Censorship

-- posted by RickR

Top 15. May 17, 1998 1:05 PM

» SteveK - Rick: If you are capable of following an extended and complex

Rick:

If you are capable of following an extended and complex argument, you will notice that this thread raised the following points:

1. You said that politicians break the law. I compared the crimes of Republican presidents to the alleged crimes of President Clinton, to illustrate the wide differences in their law-breaking.

2. You produced a George Washington quote asserting that private morality is the foundation of our government. I showed that the driving force behind progress in society has never been personal character, but ideas and the insititutions that embody them.

3. Your insistence on finding perfect human beings to lead our nation rests on the assumption that human foibles can work their way into our laws and policies. To do that, these individuals need to have absolute power on a certain issue without any checks and balances at all. I challenged you to identify these areas or instances for me. So far, you've only repeated your initial unsupported assertion.

4. Do you really hold CEO's accountable for their sexual behavior when you buy stock? Pray tell, where do you find such information? Is it reported in the stock market pages of newspapers? Is there a "Dow Jones Sexual Misbehavior Index?" Do you keep up with the sexual antics of all the upper management in a company, or just the CEO's? Can you tell me if Michael Eisner really is into circus animals and midgets? Or is he just into phone sex with Disney interns? I must admit, I'm mightily impressed by your searching analysis of these companies.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 16. May 18, 1998 5:23 AM

» RickR - Steve,<br> 1) I said "politicians break the law". You went on t

Steve,

1) I said "politicians break the law". You went on to give numerous examples of Republicans who allegedly broke the law, with less evidence to back you up than now exists against Clinton and declared these unfounded accusations somehow different and more serious. First, it merely agrees with the point. All I said was "politicians break the law". Second, given the truth of your allegations, it is irrelevent in that we do not give up enforcing manslaughter because sometime in the past someone is alledged to have gotten away with murder. This is no complex argument, it is childish babble.

2)You disagree with George Washington. Big deal. I'm sure you are not alone. So what? To state, as I did, that private morality has an historical place in our judgement of such matters isn't effected by your disagreement with Mr. Washington. Again, irrelevent and an indication you write before you think.

3) Neither Joel nor I mentioned anything about "perfect human beings". This is a bee in your bonnet and you are arguing with yourself.

4) To write this kind of mocking, childish nonsence is only an indication of ignorance. There are numerous published means of researching most CEOs, if you wish to research investing.

There is no complex argument here. There is barely an argument at all. Just a childish desire to have a say on something no matter how ridculous it is.

Rick

-- posted by RickR