Gene's Blog

A wide ranging political discussion

January 21st, 2008 | by gene |

This comes from a discussion I had with someone who reprinted a scurrilous article accusing Hillary Clinton of being a lesbian in hopes of derailing her presidential campaign, the other side of the discussion. I thought it particularly appropriate for Martin Luther King day. There were a couple of people with whom I was speaking their portions are in italics, my responses are not:

“Here is some evidence of the potential new Commander-in-Chief:

Is Hillary Clinton a Lesbian?
By Dave Martin
July 29, 2007

1. Gennifer Flowers quoted her lover, Bill Clinton, colorfully, and to this writer’s Southern ears, quite authentically, with respect to Hillary’s experience in performing oral sex on women in her book, Passion and Betrayal.

2. Dr. Jack Wheeler, citing unnamed Secret Service agents, reported in a published interview that the agents had caught Hillary in the sex act with another woman in the White House and named a prominent Hollywood actress who hails from Arkansas as one of her preferred partners. Secret Service agents were also the source of the story told to the policeman son-in-law of a colleague of this writer that Hillary had a regular woman whom she brought into the White House for sexual purposes.

3. Jerry Oppenheimer repeated and dismissed the Washington “rumor” in his book, State of the Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton, that a Washington veterinarian, on house call to the White House to treat a sick Socks, the Clinton cat, had “opened the wrong door” and caught Hillary in bed with another woman”

Besides, there’s a theory that many lesbians are man-haters. I don’t know if that’s true or not. Still, a female Commander-in-Chief who hates men and loves women? Gawdddd…..”

That is a common theory proposed by people of faith. You know, your type. The Robertsons, and Falwells, and bin Ladens of the world. It is a way of deflecting the weakness of your argument to a personal attack. A common, and inherently dishonest, method of debate. Used primarily by those with weak arguments to begin with – you know, the kind that say, well, because the Bible/Koran/whatever says so. Which statement by itself is proof of nothing. Men wrote those books. So then the argument goes, but, but, but they were divinely inspired! Oh, right, show me THAT in writing too.

When it comes down to someone telling you that you must accept their argument as a matter of faith, they have no argument, they have an opinion, not normally their own either. Besides you can use the bible and Koran to sell anything you want from any angle, slavery, crucifixion, jihad, killing all the infidels. Or loving thy neighbor as thyself. People just pick and choose phrases and words out of context to support whatever idea they want to shove down someone else’s throat. Those aren’t arguments, they’re abuse.

I’d need a hell of a lot more than THAT to believe it. And if there is a such person, he better have more than “unnamed agents” as testimony as that is a legally actionable statement which I suspect Mrs. Clinton knows. Dr. Wheeler better have deep pockets because he is going to need them. Since I am sending this on to Hillary’s campaign committee…

Then, it became a Constitution argument:

“The Constitution gave the federal government certain responsibilities … arbitrate disputes between the states, provide for a common defense, conduct foreign policy and collect the monies necessary to support those responsibilities. It says nothing about creating a “mommy state” and being all things to all people. Hillary is a Socialist. IMO, she may have YOUR best interests at heart. She does NOT have the best interests of the country at heart.”

Which devolved into her not being a good person because she chose to remain in her marriage. The possibility that she did do because she loves him and forgave him, is not a possibility at all according to many on the right wing. The only possible reason she could have is her own political ambition. Uh huh.

I was accosted because I said I would forward that article to her campaign committee. I have been on her mailing list since her Senatorial campaign began. I was asked why I would do such a thing if I didn’t believe it true. So I responded, because it is libelous and would only be done to a woman. No one does things like that to male candidates. A strong woman and the right wingnut world quavers, well, she must be a lesbian. Well, fine for right wing radio and Foxie news. But if an individual says something like, with malice, it is legally actionable. And people need to be held accountable for their actions, I’d think you right wingers would agree on that before anyone else. Aren’t you all about that? I’ll let her campaign decide what, if anything, they wish to do about it. But libel isn’t nice even if it is campaign season. Whispers, rumors, unnamed sources, THIS is how you choose to campaign? George Will said in his column today that this is going to be the worst drubbing Republicans have had since 1964 – and I think he’s right and THESE tactics are one of the reasons. Just one. There are lots of others, better ones, including just about everything Shrub has done since 9/11. This one though is personal and she may wish to do something about it. And I have NEVER said I’m voting for her. Though I certainly will if she is the nominee. I, at this point, support Obama…

“The comeback was, if the story is true, then why is it defamatory?”

If can be an awfully big word. And if all you have to go on is “if”, then you have nothing. If the moon was made of green cheese it would be really cool. There has never been anything to substantiate this “story” that would even allow for an “if”, it was fabricated. Which is a typical right wing tactic. And which is going to blow right up in your faces this year. People are tired of Karl Rove style sleazy roll-in-the-mud politics and the proof of that will be heard round the world come November… You heard it hear first, lol.

“As far as I know, if you tell the truth, it isn’t slander.”

Well, that is the key point here isn’t it? If that were the truth it would be all over the world by now since the “article” quoted was published 6 months ago. You think the national media wouldn’t be all over that? Oh, please, you can’t be that naive. Anyway, she can decide for herself what, if anything she wants to do about it, cuz I have already sent it to her. And if you people keep it up, I’m going to dump Obama for her just to spite you all. There isn’t that much to choose from between them, either will be a 1000 percent improvement over that one who’s been squatting in that office too long already. 371 days left and counting. And our long national nightmare will be over, lol.

The discussion then expanded for a bit to include Obama, because I’d said I supported him at this point.

“You better be more concerned about a Muslim being President than a lesbian!”

My only concern with this election is Universal Healthcare. I will vote for whatever candidate believes America should get out of the freakin dark ages and stop treating healthcare as a commodity. Have you seen Sicko? The rest of the world can do it. Why can’t we? Because it might lead us toward been a socialistic country, according to shrub. Well if that mean taking care of each other, how on earth is that a bad thing? So the rich ones can only have houses on two coasts instead of three and might have to cut back their servants to two and hire a cheaper landscaper. No one is going bankrupt over providing health care for EVERYONE. It’ll make us a healthier, happier, more productive nation – and somehow that is a bad thing? I’m with you on this one, insure EVERYONE. We can afford – even if we have to give up a billion dollar plane or two…

Someone then brought national health care into the discussion at hand and that supporting it, is Socialistic by definition, to which I responded:

Health Care

That link points you to one of the problems with Health Care in this country. United Health Care group’s CSO, William McGuire is being required to repay 618 million dollars, plus a 7 million dollar fine but is being allowed to keep more than 800 million dollars. What one person is worth that much money? When is enough, enough? That isn’t capitalism it is naked greed. You could insure every uninsured child in Minnesota for what that ONE person “earned”. From OUR premiums. That insurance, under COBRA, if one were to lose one’s job, or be downsized out of it, costs $1200 a month for family coverage. Who can afford that on what unemployment pays? There HAVE to be alternatives. That you are able take care of yourself but care nothing for anyone not as fortunate as you, it speaks more to your sense of morality than it does Obama’s or Hillary’s. I believe we have a responsibility as human beings to care for each other, I think that should be our first priority, caring for the young and the elderly. But I don’t think the working poor should be excluded either.

Our late great Senator Hubert Humphrey, who did not beat Nixon in 1968 ONLY because he supported officially, though not personally, his boss’s position on Viet Nam, had this to say about government:

“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life – the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

I agree with him though he has been dead for many years – that IS the moral test of government.

Then we come to the crux of the argument. THIS is what I see happening in Minnesota and around the country. It is a sort of “I got mine, get your own” mentality that I simply do not understand nor agree with.

“I do NOT believe I have a responsibility for anybody except myself. And, I do NOT expect anybody to assume responsibility for me. “

Ahh, then you would support abandoning our constitution and all governmental protections and services it provides, police, fire, defense, the common good. I see, a libertarian/anarchist. Now I understand where you are coming from.

“That’s a ridiculous statement. I said nothing about abandoning the Constitution.”

I don’t think it ridiculous at all. You said clearly you didn’t think you had any responsibility for anyone but yourself and our constitution is designed to help all of us. Either you believe that or you don’t. And you said yourself you didn’t give a rat’s but about anyone but you. I know your type, I’ll never understand that sort of selfishness, but you aren’t alone. Sadly.

“You conveniently ignored the rest of my post … the bit about going back to the original purpose of the Constitution … you know, arbitrate disputes between the states, etc. You act like it’s a crime to be independent and self-sufficient. You’d feel a whole lot better about me if I worked hard and then gave my assets to those who didn’t want to work. You’re the perfect example of a Socialist. You want our government to collect and redistribute the wealth in this country so everybody has the exact same assets. “

And YOU, conveniently ignored this, as I posted yesterday. It is not socialistic to care for others less fortunate than you, it is christian, it is muslim, it is the golden rule, and it is in the nature of humanity, most of it, to feel empathy and act on it. Were that not so, we’d have no doctors, no nurses, no care givers at all – it would be the wild west, each for themselves and themselves alone. We’d have no nursing homes, no home health care aides, no adult or child protection services, nor any of the other social services upon which a large number of our fellow citizens depend to have ANY sort of life at all.

I believe we are at our best when we care for each other. And I believe those of us who have been blessed with the means and ability to take care of ourselves have a moral responsibility to care for others, else we be nothing but savages. And I think we’re more than that. That isn’t socialism, it is humans caring for other humans. It is mercy. It is loving. And it is right. You may believe as you wish. I have trouble with selfish people. And people who think they got where they are all by themselves, no help from anyone, when the truth is none of us do that, we all have parents, teachers, mentors, friends who have helped us along the way of our path to adulthood. All I am saying is that tradition of love and caring for each other is a moral responsibility that most of the world feels and understands. And acts on.

Government is at its best when it leads the way and demonstrates its understanding of the reason for its existence in ways that benefit all, not just the fortunate few. Our constitution begins, “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” I think that speaks for itself, and that it means what it says, a union is a group of people joined together for the common good. And that means all of us, not just the ones lucky enough to have been born with privilege or with the mental and physical capacity to care for themselves. Senator Humphrey was right in what he said below. I LIVE that way and intend to for the rest of my days. You may do as you choose. That is one of the freedoms we have too.

“As far as this Board is concerned, I thought we were on a debate and discussion board … NOT … a board that’s controlled by a self-appointed monitor. If he doesn’t like something, it tattle-tale time. :::shrug::: I outgrew that behavior in junior high.”

I did do what I said I would. The reason is that this is not junior high. That article reprinted here was dated last summer, which makes it an active part of this campaign. There is an element in this country that will stop at nothing to prevent a woman from becoming president. I’ve already said she is not my first choice. I have been posting here for five years and have never done anything like that before. The reason is I don’t really care what people say. I believe in freedom of speech. I discuss and move on. But there is a difference between making slurs, which happens here all the time and always has, and libel.

Public figures are held to a higher standard, they ARE in the public eye and are therefore open to things being said about them. It is much easier for John Q. Citizen to prove up a case of slander or libel than it is for a public figure. This is reasonable. Slander is spoken, libel is written defamation. I felt that what was said might well be actionable, even in the case of a political campaign because, in my admittedly opinion, that was done with malice aforethought. So I looked up libel and decided that, in fairness, her campaign deserved to know, if they did not, that this was being bandied about as if it were God’s own truth. I have included the particular site I used and the information it provides below, for your edification. I don’t consider malicious intent, which is punishable under our legal system, to fall under the category of telling tales out of school. Your attempt to reduce this to tattle-taling, again, speaks more to me about your character than it does mine. You are not the only person in this world, or on this board, who works hard or has paid their own way through life. Google, libel. You’ll have hours of reading enjoyment and learn the difference between telling a funny story and making up a malicious lie intended to do actual harm to another human being. As you obviously do not get the difference at all.

Slander

Slander is defined as the act of making false and injurious statements that do injury to a person’s reputation. Both slander and libel are forms of defamation. Slander is defamation that is spoken, while libel is defamation that is written. Slander can include any false statement which does injury to a person’s business or personal reputation and can relate to the person’s character, morals, ability, business practices, or financial status. The victim of slander has the legal right file a civil lawsuit against the person who committed the slander to seek compensation for their damages.

United States slander laws are less plaintiff friendly than the laws of other democratic countries. This is in large part due to the protections offered to US citizens by the first amendment of our constitution. The first amendment guarantees free speech rights to all citizens, and therefore restricts the legal options available to those who are aggrieved by this speech. Both federal and state laws do, however, provide protections to those who are the victims of slander.

State laws regarding slander can vary considerably. Some lump both slander and libel into the same category of offenses, some laws are outdated and rarely prosecuted, and other laws are more specific and comprehensive. In most states the defendant in a slander case will only be charged with a single claim for the primary slander offenses, rather than a claim for each instance of slander. Slander statistics show that approximately seventy five percent of all civil cases involving slander are handled in state courts and twenty five percent in federal courts.

In most slander legal cases the defendant is a mass media entity such as a news organization. Newspapers are the most common defendant in defamation cases, and they are involved in defamation cases twice as often as TV stations. Because slander is spoken, however, newspapers are not typically the defendant in these cases. Other defendants in a slander case can be political or social figures or groups.

By definition, slander is the act of publicizing false statements that cause injury to the reputation of one person. Therefore, the plaintiff in a slander case must be a single individual. The most common plaintiffs in a slander case are business professionals, entertainers, and other public figures. Most states do not allow a slander lawsuit to be filed on behalf of a person who is deceased.

The defendant is a slander case has many potential points in his favor. A slander case may be dismissed if the injurious statements were stated as opinion rather than fact; if they are deemed “fair comments and criticisms”; if they do not actually do injury to the plaintiff’s reputation; or if the statements were true. The plaintiff in a slander case must also prove that the defendant acted negligently or with malice in order to win a case. If you would like to learn more about slander cases, please contact us to speak with a qualified and experienced attorney who can evaluate your case to determine how best to protect and maximize your legal interests.

That you think Public Administration a useless degree does not surprise me in the least. This is the area in which we are least alike. I care about other people and you care about you. That has been our bone of contention over however many years it is that you have been posting here. I know you came after I did, or perhaps you had been gone a while, as you do tend to disappear, anyway I’d been here a year, at least before your first anti-female diatribe post. It is okay to feel as you do. For that matter it is okay to feel as anyone does, that really is the point of this whole human experience. I mean why else bother?

You ARE in NY after all and work in finance. I understand your anger, but do not understand why it is so directed at women. It wasn’t women who flew the planes into the towers? Their purpose was to destroy, or try to, our financial heart. But, you see, I believe we are more than that. I don’t think we are only about money. I really do believe what I say and I think if we had some time to sit down together and talk, I could persuade you of my opinion. Women aren’t evil. You may have been treated evilly by some woman, but that does not make women all of the same stripe. What I said earlier on this thread is what I believe. We are at our best when we pull together. Unfortunately that happens really only when we have a common enemy. It should not require war for us to treat each other well. Is my opinion. I don’t think greed, naked greed, is at the top of Maslow’s pyramid. I think what should be at the top of that pyramid is eden. You will recall eden? Well, I believe that when we all learn to care about each other, care for each other, when we all prosper, in our own way, we will have reached the top of that pyramid. We have a ways to ago as is evident from this exchange. Even so, much love, :^) gene

If today brings even one choice your way
choose to be a bringer of the light :^) gene