Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick

How many of the US Presidents have been rapists? According to a list, four have been accused: Jefferson, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43. Okay, we can throw out the accusation against Bush as BDS, while the accusation against Clinton is clearly true. But what about Jefferson and Reagan? Is Clinton probably the only rapist elected President?

There has been a lot written about this, both in dead tree, and on the web, but most people simply dismiss it as "Clinton hatred."

Good grief, what could they be thinking?

Posted by Jim Harris at November 24, 2007 11:58 AM

Is Clinton probably the only rapist elected President?

I've no idea. Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that it's all right, because other presidents were rapists?

Good grief, what could they be thinking?

They could be (mistakenly) thinking that it's all Clinton hatred, instead of the fact that much of it is legitimate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 24, 2007 12:05 PM

Rand, I'm on my way out the door for the day (and my wife is only somewhat patiently waiting for me) but I wanted to promptly thank you for such a complete answer.

I still can't believe that reporters would pass on such juicy and important stories due to bias - I think there is too much economic incentive as well as incentive for fame and glory to not report as accurately as possible - at the time - or now - on such accusations. As for the accusations themselves, thank you for the book recommendations. I respect Christopher Hitchens very much, and I will order his book this evening. I'll also read reviews for the other book and decide. I'm a Democrat, I do want to know, I do care, and I bet that's true for the majority of Democrats.

Gotta run for now, but again: thank you

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 24, 2007 12:22 PM

Are you saying that it's all right, because other presidents were rapists?

No, it really looks like Clinton was the only one, by far the most criminal president that we've ever had. No other president has done things that even John Gotti would be ashamed to do.

They could be (mistakenly) thinking that it's all Clinton hatred, instead of the fact that much of it is legitimate.

You don't think that hatred can be legitimate?

Posted by Jim Harris at November 24, 2007 12:43 PM

...it really looks like Clinton was the only one, by far the most criminal president that we've ever had. No other president has done things that even John Gotti would be ashamed to do.

Is this sarcasm? I do in fact think that Bill Clinton is the most criminal president that we've ever had.

FWIW, John Gotti would probably be willing to personally whack people. I don't think that Bill or Hillary have the stones.

You don't think that hatred can be legitimate?

Yes, but I also think that it's possible to tell the truth about the Clintons without "hating" them. And that many who dismiss it as "Clinton hatred" are implying that it's therefore somehow not legitimate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 24, 2007 01:08 PM

I do in fact think that Bill Clinton is the most criminal president that we've ever had.

By far. Yes, it's clear that you think so.

I also think that it's possible to tell the truth about the Clintons without "hating" them.

If you mean this as a self-description, it's not very convincing.

And that many who dismiss it as "Clinton hatred" are implying that it's therefore somehow not legitimate.

If it were Bush hatred, then sure, hatred would be valid evidence that the accusations aren't legitimate. But if it's Clinton hatred, what's the problem? What is wrong with hating a rapist?

Posted by Jim Harris at November 24, 2007 01:19 PM

I have to correct Mr. Simberg just a bit — Travelgate wasn't about putting Clinton people in the travel office, but about avoiding political fallout for doing so. Then President Clinton had the legal right to fire everyone in that office on a whim. But it would have looked bad, and so the false charges are made were improve the PR situation. To me, this was the defining event for the Clintons, demonstrating the ircomplete disregard for other people by being willing to ruin lives in order to avoid some trivial political blowback. All of their other misdeeds are simply variations on this theme.

Posted by Annoying Old Guy at November 24, 2007 01:23 PM

If it were Bush hatred, then sure, hatred would be valid evidence that the accusations aren't legitimate.

No, in neither case is it necessarily true. For both Bush and Clinton, the charges and evidence have to stand on their own, regardless of the emotions of the accuser.

But if it's Clinton hatred, what's the problem? What is wrong with hating a rapist?

There's nothing wrong with hating a rapist. But the emotion is irrelevant to whether or not the rapist is a rapist.

AOG, I agree. They could fire the travel office people for cause or for no cause. But as you said, they had to go beyond that and prosecute Billy Dale, in a trial in which he was found innocent in half an hour, so flimsy was the FBI's case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 24, 2007 01:54 PM

Most people saw the Travel Office scandal as a
gross misuse of Power, and a terrible stewardship
of public trust.

That said it was quite typical of the clintons to
smear people to avoid political trouble, but,
it's a real action which undermines any further
malicious claims against them.

People who don't have the courage to fire people
within their scope of duties such as Bill Dale
and Linda Tripp, don't suddenly develope the
courage to murder people who are of minor importance.

If Bill Clinton were the rampaging cold blooded
killer that the autistic right would make out,
he'd have gone out and systematically liquidated
Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones,
Ken Starr, Tom Delay, Richard Scaife.

The mere fact these people are all alive
speaks more about the grotesqueness of the
charges of murder against Bill Clinton then
anything else.

The Real Mob kills people in a heartbeat the
second they become a question mark.

I bet the author here has never had lunch
with a killer.

Posted by anonymous at November 24, 2007 03:47 PM

A new (or perhaps the same) Anonymous Moron weighs in again.

If Bill Clinton were the rampaging cold blooded
killer that the autistic right would make out

I'm not "autistic," or "the right," nor have I characterized Bill Clinton as a "rampaging cold blooded killer." In fact, I've characterized him as exactly the opposite. I think that, as someone who grew up in the notoriously corrupt Hot Springs, Arkansas, he's someone who is happy to have others kill for him, as long as they don't provide him with the details.

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

But thanks for displaying once again your anonymous idiocy. You're not far off from being banned for it (probably once again).

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 24, 2007 04:29 PM

The mere fact these people are all alive
speaks more about the grotesqueness of the
charges of murder against Bill Clinton then
anything else.

I'm skeptical the Clintons had anyone killed. However, when Bill was president the Clintons had many ways to punish enemies that wouldn't get them into trouble. They had little reason to commit murder even if they were capable of it. Look at what happened to Linda Tripp, Paula Jones and a couple of ex-girlfriends who caused problems. What's Linda Tripp, who had a "secure" govt job, doing for a living these days?

The Real Mob kills people in a heartbeat the
second they become a question mark.

They have to if they want to retain their power. Since their primary business activities are illegal, mobsters have no way to enforce contracts or block competition other than by violence. That's not true for most other people in our society.

I bet the author here has never had lunch
with a killer.

Maybe he has better things to do?

You seem to be trying to pull this argument toward a reductio ad absurdum where you can imply that because the Clintons never had anyone killed (if it's true that they didn't) they are not profoundly corrupt. But they are corrupt. Everyone knows it.

Attempts to equate Bush hatred and Clinton hatred founder on the inconvenient contrast between Bush -- who is hated for his policies, plain talk and stubbornness -- and Clinton, who is hated for his flagrant dishonesty, lack of principle and personal corruption.

Posted by Jonathan at November 24, 2007 04:36 PM

...it really looks like Clinton was the only one, by far the most criminal president that we've ever had.

What are the chances that in 9 years that statement will still be true? But it will be another Clinton that moves to the top of the list of Presidential Criminals. This time our wallets will be the rape victim.

Posted by Steve at November 24, 2007 07:03 PM

"I think that, as someone who grew up in the notoriously corrupt Hot Springs, Arkansas, he's someone who is happy to have others kill for him, as long as they don't provide him with the details."

If the Foster thing were my investigation, I would squeeze Raymond "Buddy" Young until he shit blood.

Bonus Round: "Where is Miquel Rodriguez?"

Posted by Billy Beck at November 24, 2007 07:50 PM

I believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick

Yeah, he got me too. Is there anyone here that he didn't rape?

Posted by Adrasteia at November 24, 2007 10:58 PM

I'm not "autistic," or "the right," nor have I characterized Bill Clinton as a "rampaging cold blooded killer."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about not being a member of "the right", since most of "the right" doesn't know what "the right" or "conservative" means either. Inconceivable, I know.

Rand, speaking from personal experience here, monomania is a common trait amoungst autistic people. Are you entirely sure you're not?

Posted by Adrasteia at November 24, 2007 11:08 PM

Man, there's nothing on earth quite like a garden-variety net.psychiatrist.

That's entertainment you can't buy for any price, anywhere.

Posted by Billy Beck at November 24, 2007 11:53 PM

Part of the job description of President is to potentially order the premeditated killings of thousands or millions of people. I don't like OJ Simpson for President, but not because he's a wife killer. Corruption increases public good via Adam Smith's invisible hand (assuming there's a way to enforce the corrupting contract). Utilitarians should look beyond the corrupt and evil means used by leaders to the expected results of their leading.

I dislike Hillary's tax policy, her environment policy, her deficit and spending policies, her space policy and her health care policy. I like her baby credit. Her culpability in crime against individuals is only of interest to me to the extent its effects harm or benefit the country if she were elected President. That last part likely affects fewer people's lives than her space policy.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at November 25, 2007 12:03 AM

Rand, speaking from personal experience here, monomania is a common trait amoungst autistic people. Are you entirely sure you're not?

You're saying you have personal experience with monomania? What is it that I'm supposed to be entirely sure that I'm not?

Monomaniacal? Autistic?

I'm certainly not the former, as anyone can see by scrolling down this blog, in which I express interest in a vast array of subjects. So just what is your point?

As for this idiotic (and yes, I use that word quite carefully) comment: Yeah, he got me too. Is there anyone here that he didn't rape?

What was the point of that? No one has claimed that he has raped everyone, or even many. But Juanita Broaddrick does claim that he raped her. If you don't believe her, why not? Why should Bill Clinton, a proven liar, be granted more credibility than one of his accusers, who has no record of false allegations?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 25, 2007 09:14 AM

Corruption increases public good via Adam Smith's invisible hand (assuming there's a way to enforce the corrupting contract).

Adam Smith's invisible hand only works when competition is present. The US government doesn't have to compete except for the higher offices and for many of those offices, there are only two parties. Given what is at best a permanently defective market, we are supposed to excuse the blatant rent-seeking on the basis that it somehow improves the economy or happiness?

Here's what I expect the result of widespread corruption to be. Any productive activity will as a result have an unofficial tax associated with it that goes to government bureaucracy. In exchange for this bribe, the business buys sufficient freedom to run a business *unless* someone bribes the bureaucracy more to sabotage that business. At no point will anything run as smoothly as it will in a government where corruption is scarce. Hence, there will be collective cost to the society, if you're into utilitarian analysis.

Enforceable corruption contracts? I don't know. My take is that some huge parties can get them, but the average citizen or small business won't get such a thing.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 25, 2007 09:58 AM

Jonathan Says :

"Linda Tripp had a secure government job and' what's she
doing for a living now?"

Um, Jonathan

You are dead wrong.

Linda Tripp had a government job, working at the white house,
and then at DoD, But secure, Not a damn bit.

She was what is called a Schedule C employee. Which makes her
an at-will employee of the president.
Everyone who works at the white house, is a sched C, and
she was moved into a C job at OSD.

http://www.opm.gov/ses/transition/III-c.asp
"Employees in Schedule C positions are subject to removal at the discretion of the administration or appointing official."

Try Fact Checking, it will help you maintain credibility

Posted by at November 25, 2007 10:38 AM

I should note that the clintons who were not courageous enough to
Fire Linda Tripp, show hardly the spine to murder people.

i'll ask a real fundamental question.

Should Bill Clinton have fired Linda Tripp on January 14 1993?

Posted by at November 25, 2007 10:41 AM

In a truly cold-blooded utilitarian analysis, the government does have competition. It is with people who are willing to pick up guns and shoot the so-called elected officials. I don't see much of that going on right now and they would probably get mislabeled as terrorists, but the truest Jeffersonian rebels would fit the bill.

Even without cash-based corruption, we already have the sabotage by out-bidding process in place. It can happen with every change of power. We see it most completely on the legislative side with the committee chairman assignments. 8)

Thanks Rand. This is the first I've seen someone describe their suspicions without making them sound like a rant. I'm still a typical Democrat in that I don't want to believe any of it, but I'll give it some thought.

Posted by Alfred Differ at November 25, 2007 10:43 AM

I offer the following website, to anyone that is interested. Basically, it treats the claim that Bill Clinton murdered anyone as an urban legend, and then attempts to debunk the legend.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

The page concludes "lets get back to Clinton's bawdy count, okay?"

The rest of the site is fun, for more lighthearted urban legends.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 25, 2007 12:39 PM

Anonymous, did you think, when you quoted me, that no one would notice your dishonest removal of the quotation marks I put around around the word "secure" in my comment?

To return to my original point, which of course you ignored, compare how the Clintons treated Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky. Tripp, a high-end administrative employee with a history of good job performance, stood her moral ground and was repaid by being transferred to a dead-end position and effectively had her career ruined. She was subjected to a campaign of character assassination in the press by Clinton allies. She became a figure of public mockery. Meanwhile Lewinsky allowed herself to be bought off by accepting a cushy make-work job from Clinton allies, and later used the publicity she received as an entrepreneurial springboard.

The Clintons' treatment of Tripp and Lewinsky fit a pattern: people who covered for the Clintons' misdeeds were rewarded; people who called the Clintons on their corruption were punished. I am, as I wrote above, skeptical that Clinton or the Clintons ever had anyone killed. That's skeptical, not certain. Given that the Clintons' M.O. resembles that of an organized-crime family, I wonder what they are capable of.

Posted by Jonathan at November 25, 2007 01:07 PM

By the way, I don't mean to imply that Rand thinks either Clinton murdered anyone. I think the words in the Rand's post were carefully chosen, and, like Alfred Differ, I'm thinking about it.

The discussion of Vince Foster and Kathleen Willey in the snopes.com page mentioned above makes it worth reading.

Posted by at November 25, 2007 01:08 PM

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 25, 2007 01:08 PM

"Should Bill Clinton have fired Linda Tripp on January 14 1993?"

You are a retard, Bill wasn't prez for six more days.

Please tell us how he would have accomplished this feat when he lacked the authority?

We thought you were all about 'facts' twatwaffle?

Posted by Someone with a clue at November 25, 2007 01:15 PM

I am, as I wrote above, skeptical that Clinton or the Clintons ever had anyone killed.

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, it depends on what "had anyone killed" means.

I doubt if they explicitly asked anyone to kill anyone. As I said, they would want to maintain plausible deniability.

As you say, Jonathan, they behave like an organized crime syndicate (there's a reason that the Arkansas people were called the "Dixie Mafia"). It would go more like, "You know, so and so is causing us problems. I wish that someone could do something about that."

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 25, 2007 01:31 PM

H-S, that Snopes page is straining quite a bit.

While I believe that many of those deaths indeed had nothing to do with the Clintons, that some of them are in fact not as easily dismissed as Snopes wants to. In fact, one of the tactics of Clinton defenders over the years is to point to wacky accusations, and then lump in the legitimate and credible ones with them, to taint them. This is an example of that.

Snopes leaves out a lot of facts that would undermine their thesis in many cases (for instance, it doesn't mention the Air Force officers whose careers were ruined because they questioned the Ron Brown autopsy). It also fails to mention anything about Patrick Knowlton, and the Knowlton Appendix in the Starr report on Foster, or the resignation of Miguel Rodriguez from the investigation. Their position is basically, "trust Ken Starr" despite his clear incompetence to anyone who reads the entire report. Ken Starr was a judge, with no experience as a prosecutor. He was a singularly poor choice for the job, and out of his depth. Sorry, but the "debunkers" need debunking in this case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 25, 2007 01:46 PM

jonathan

Glad you admit Linda Tripp was a political appointee,
working an at-will job, who was terminatable without redress
to OPM.

If Clinton had any stones, he'd have fired all the Bush appointees
day one, it was a real weakness of character that he didn't.

As for Linda Tripp, the highest job she held was a secretary,
in the government, and that she hasn't done well since
is a statement about her limitations of character.

If she was such a great employee, why didn't GWB hire her?

Posted by at November 25, 2007 02:10 PM

The analog is really closer to what happens in Putin's Russia. Stairova, Politskaya, Livchenko
& other dissidents to the Putin machine, have all died; only Zandarbichev, the Chechen premier in exile,in Doha, Quatar has had his death directly
linked to Putin. Similar things could have been said about Jerry Parks, Vince Foster, & other figures were the investigation was half hearted
to say the least. Sydney Blumenthal, used to do
exactly this type of tendencious insinuations along with Phillip Agee, Jeff Gerth, & Norman
Solomon, in a little pamphlet called "Government
by Gun Play" one of the first of the Kennedy
conspiracy miasma that has floated into the zeitgeist.

Posted by narciso at November 25, 2007 02:33 PM

You're saying you have personal experience with monomania?

Some, autism too, but it's OT.

Clinton has now been out of office for seven years. Surely it's time to let go of harping on about that semen stain and start attacking his idiotic wife?

Posted by Adrasteia at November 25, 2007 04:20 PM

Rand, you said "In fact, one of the tactics of Clinton defenders over the years is to point to wacky accusations, and then lump in the legitimate and credible ones with them, to taint them." I was with you there, but then you mentioned "Air Force officers whose careers were ruined because they questioned the Ron Brown autopsy"

Isn't the Ron Brown case one of those wacky accusations? Ron Brown, a Clinton cabinet official, dies in a USAF aircraft crash in Croatia in 1996, a year after the war there ended. There are no survivors - 34 other people, including USAF personnel, die in the crash or immediately after it. There are some reports that Ron Brown's head suffered a .45 gunshot wound. Among those reports, they differ on whether there was an exit wound. Explanations for the lack of an autopsy include references to the lack of an exit wound.

Even if Ron Brown had information that would make someone want to kill him, why take down a USAF aircraft, killing 34 people, to do it? The gunshot wound, if it occurred, happened before, during, or after the crash. None seem likely, but lets think about it: If I came across a victim of an aircraft crash with an apparent gunshot wound, I would assume that the two extraordinary events (aircraft crash & apparent gunshot wound) were causally linked: perhaps it wasn't a gunshot wound -- perhaps the wound was caused by the collision of Ron Brown's head with a metal part in the crah. But if the wound was due to a bullet, perhaps an exchange of gunfire aboard the aircraft caused it to crash. Or perhaps someone came across Ron Brown in a severely wounded state after the crash, and decided to put him out of his misery with a mercy killing. Conceivably details would be covered up to protect someone from embarrasement, but I find it hard to believe. A scenario in which Brown was murdered for political expediency seems even more farfetched to me. You don't agree?

A large conspiracy would be required, and aren't all large conspiracies farfetched?

The big picture:

The key question remains: figuring out where to get trustworthy information. I'll have a look at those books you recommended.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 25, 2007 04:22 PM

Clinton has now been out of office for seven years. Surely it's time to let go of harping on about that semen stain and start attacking his idiotic wife?

[searching.........]

Can't find a word I've said about a semen stain.

If his "idiotic wife" gets into office, we'll once again have "two for the price of one." It's too high a price for me. I'd like to remind people (and inform those for whom it is new news, as opposed to old news) of what we're in for if we put them back in power.

You know, we'd probably take your points (to the limited degree that they exist) more seriously if they were less hyperbolic (Clinton raped everyone, I'm monomaniacal and autistic, "semen stain," etc.).

H-S: wrt Ron Brown, you cannot rely on the mainstream news reports in this matter. They reported that the plane went down in the "worst storm of the century." It was a light drizzle. The ATC guy who guided the plane in short of the runway committed suicide (I won't use scare quotes) not long thereafter.

The key question remains: figuring out where to get trustworthy information.

That is the key (and disturbing) question.

Did you ever see the video of Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral, at which he was laughing and joking until he realized that there was a camera on him, at which point he instantaneously put on a somber expression and turned on the waterworks? That is almost the definition of a sociopath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 25, 2007 05:05 PM

I didn't see the video of Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral. I think we all have been to funerals where laughter actually was appropriate, but could have been misunderstood by an outside viewer -- but without seeing the video, I don't know if this observation applies. Still, if you're telling me that a politician has been caught acting in front of the cameras, I'm hardly surprised, but not alarmed. (Actually, I feel sorry for them - I hate to think how many good people have refused to go into politics because of the constant scrutiny of the cameras.)

My problem is that I really do rely on the mainstream media for my sense of reality. I'm just like everyone else in that I've found that even the best newspapers never report completely accurately on the science and engineering fields that I actually know something about. Fortunately, they almost never make such a complete hash of things that I completely lose all trust in them.

I think the observation about the near-impossibility of a large conspiracy still stands.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 25, 2007 05:22 PM

A scenario in which Brown was murdered for political expediency seems even more farfetched to me. You don't agree?

As an isolated theory, out of all context, I would agree. But in the context of the Clinton administration, I'm not saying that I believe that Ron Brown was murdered in such a bizarre fashion--I'm simply saying that I wouldn't rule it out, out of hand. And the proposition was not that he was killed by a .45 slug. The proposition was that he was killed by a weapon that made a hole in his head of that diameter, but without a projectile. I've no idea how common such a device is, but I could imagine it useful in animal slaughter.

My understanding is that the X-rays that prompted this speculation later disappeared, and, as I said, the military medical officers present on the scene who raised the issue subsequently suffered severe damage to their careers because they continued to insist that an autopsy should have been performed. Those are facts. Why they are facts is purely speculation. Again, I'm not making specific accusations. I'm simply saying that there is cause for suspicion.

Yes, it does seem strange that, if they wanted to take out one man, they'd kill a plane full of people. But on the other hand, if one wants to kill someone without it looking like an assassination, what better way to do it, exactly because it would prompt skepticism such as you reasonably express? It wouldn't, after all, require a huge conspiracy. Simply bribing a flight controller in Bosnia to guide an aircraft in on the wrong flight path in a storm (who later ended up dead) would do the job. Though perhaps, it might require someone to go through the wreckage to make sure that the deed was done.

But Bill Clinton would never countenance such a thing? As I said, there is ample evidence that he is sociopathic. Scott Peterson and Ted Bundy (and Charles Manson) were reportedly quite charismatic as well.

Again, not claiming that this happened, just that I would be unshocked to learn that it did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 25, 2007 05:45 PM

Anonymous, you seem unable to follow a logical argument. I take it you are too ashamed to acknowledge that you willfully misquoted me, and that your repeated attempts to divert the discussion via red herrings and non sequiturs is a tacit admission that I am correct about the Clintons' corruption.

HS, I saw the video of Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral. Rush Limbaugh played it on his TV show at the time, and for all I know it is now on the Internet somewhere. I recommend it.

BTW, has anyone heard either Clinton described as an honorable person?

Posted by Jonathan at November 25, 2007 09:00 PM

Jonathan, I looked on YouTube, and sure enough, there was the video. Other websites have it too - they are one google search away. YouTube's version, as well as other versions I've found so far, are rather low-resolution, but, to my eye, it looks like he is wiping away perspiration rather than crying. I'm _not_ trying to be an apologist. Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+brown+clinton&search=Search

As a bonus, the above link will lead to various talking head discussions of the subject, but I haven't watched them yet.

None of this speaks to the important questions. I'd say Sam Dinkin's utilitarian philosophy about law-breaking politicians is most worth questioning, but other than making noise about honor and decency, all I can come up with is the idea that Sam's argument leads to a slippery slide toward abandoning rule by law all together in favor of a benevolent despot, an approach that has been shown to have low utility.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 25, 2007 09:24 PM

Jonathan

You seem to think Linda Tripp had a secure job. You fail to
acknowledge she could have been fired just because the
boss thought she wore ugly shoes.

Sure she became a mockery, and a subject of ridicule. So
did monica lewinsky, who is now slang for fellatio.

Politics is a dirty business and Linda thought she could wade
into a pig fight and not get dirty?

It was ridiculuous Linda Tripp had a job in 1993, let alone
a better job later.

If she was such a great employee, how come not a single
GOP house member, senator, or Bush appointee wanted to
hire her?

Posted by at November 25, 2007 09:33 PM

You forgot Jeffrey Dahmer. Also Jim Jones. Also Darth Sidious and Freddie Krueger.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 25, 2007 10:06 PM

HS, thanks for the link. I agree that Clinton's actions in the low-res YouTube video are unclear. I remember the TV version as being longer and as clearly showing Clinton changing his expression from joking to somber immediately after he looked in the direction of the TV camera. It was like the mime's routine where Marcel Marceau goes from happy to sad as he passes his hand over his face. I could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

I share your reservations about Sam Dinkin's utilitarian voting philosophy.

Anonymous, you sound like a parrot arguing with itself in a mirror. I say the Clintons are corrupt. You keep trying to make irrelevant points about Linda Tripp's job security. Are you hoping for a job in Hillary's press office? I am sure they read this blog.

Posted by Jonathan at November 26, 2007 06:23 AM

jonathan

i think the clintons were less corrupt then the Bushes.

Posted by at November 26, 2007 10:34 AM

i think the clintons were less corrupt then the Bushes.

Yes, we know. You think all manner of idiotic, baseless things. And are eager to ungrammatically pollute my website with them, even if you're too cowardly to attach your name to them.

Posted by at November 26, 2007 10:48 AM

Sam: Corruption increases public good via Adam Smith's invisible hand (assuming there's a way to enforce the corrupting contract).

Karl: Adam Smith's invisible hand only works when competition is present.

Sam: No, it works when there is a personal profit motive. Bribes are transfers that don't particularly affect the efficiency of the economy only the distribution. Why go to the trouble of making an illegal bribe when you can offer a legal campaign contribution or book contract? Campaign contributions are a kind of all-pay auction which while not quite as good as a winner-pays auction, is still often pretty good. In any case, lobbying and campaign contributions are a tiny tiny fraction of GDP ($2 billion=0.015% of the economy)

Posted by Sam Dinkin at November 26, 2007 01:02 PM

Hillary-Supporter: "A large conspiracy would be required, and aren't all large conspiracies farfetched?"

Did you ever hear of a little Vietnam-era gag entitled "Operation MENU"? I can give you pointers if you never heard of it. It included elements of 15th Air Force, 7th Air Force, Strategic Air Command, Pacific Air Forces, Military Assistance Command Vietnam, a total of almost 20,000 individuals in Southeast Asia, the Pentagon (very selectively, and only to manage "an elaborate dual reporting system to divert information from normal channels"), Norodom Sihanouk, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Melvin Laird, and "a few sympathetic members of Congress" (see Stanley Karnow), and it excluded: the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff.

This is the notorious secret bombing of Cambodia. The thing was planned to go on for fourteen months in total secrecy as outlined above. (Here's a point that you might bear in mind: one does not have to be aware of a conspiracy in order to be part of it. An example here would be the support troops who uploaded weapons to the B-52's.)

Can you imagine why I point this out to you? It goes like this: a cautionary awareness of the prospects for a large conspiracy, implicit in your question, is not the same as the audacity it takes to try it. The fact that MENU got tipped-over by the New York Times says nothing to the fact that these people were audacious enough to try it.

It is not wise at all to simply sneer-off attempts the way that your question does. If the sheer attitude necessarily implicit in your question had obtained in 1969-70, nobody would have bothered to dig it up, on the sheer assumption that it was "farfetched". And guess what: that assumption was in maimstream-media operation all through the Clinton years.

Did you see my remarks to you on the other post here?

Posted by Billy Beck at November 26, 2007 05:03 PM

Rand: "Did you ever see the video of Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral, at which he was laughing and joking until he realized that there was a camera on him, at which point he instantaneously put on a somber expression and turned on the waterworks? That is almost the definition of a sociopath."

I have an example that I think is even better: his "vivid and painful memories of churches burning in the Arkansas of [his] youth," which was exposed as sheer fantasy within 48 hours of his uttering those words. The Arkansas chapter of NAACP called bullshit on that one, almost instantly.

Who was it who wrote that "Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth"?

Posted by Billy Beck at November 26, 2007 05:11 PM

Post a comment