vision2020
what belongs here?
John Guyer ends his recent impeachment discussion with an interesting
request: he wants to know if this continuing dialog about a national
issue "belongs" on the Moscow Vision 2020 list--a list originally
focused on public issues involving the town of Moscow, Idaho and its
immediate surroundings.
I would really like to know how others would answer the question, but my
answer is yes. It's OK to expand the dialog to the much larger,
national issues.
As one of the founders of 2020, I know that one of my hopes for this
list was that we would be creating a "virtual soapbox," a place where
people could meet and hear opinions on a variety of issues. I felt
then, and still believe, that we (speaking about this privatized,
consumerist, cocooning culture we are floating in) need to expand our
discussions. I also felt that there was no way that whatever dialog
developed could be channelled or restricted by anyone serving as a 2020
steering committee member or assuming any other responsibility for the
discussion.
It's like: build the soapbox and they will come....
On the other hand, the original purpose of Moscow Vision 2020 (expanding
the discussion of local public issues) is a valid one, and I would like
to have us all keep that in mind as well.
I think that the way to direct the discussion to local topics is not to
restrict the discussion, but to encourage everyone to post questions,
ideas, and concerns about local issues on this list. Please do so.
There's plenty of local stuff to discuss.
How about some of these topics?
-the linear park from Main Street to Tidyman's...what's going on? Who
is contacting local landowners about making the connections of the
little pieces now in public ownership?
-(given the semi-verified rumor that the two downtown theatres in Moscow
will close next summer) what could happen to those two huge empty
spaces? What have other towns done with closed downtown theatres?
-the topless women of Moscow...what happened in other towns where
toplessness for both women and men is OK (I understand that is true in
Eugene, OR)? What can we expect as far as continuing civil disobedience
on this issue? Is this a serious threat to the public order?
BL
>From vision2020-request@moscow.com Wed Dec 30 08:19:25 1998
>Received: (from slist@localhost)
> by whale.fsr.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA26638;
> Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:19:29 -0800 (PST)
> (envelope-from vision2020-request@moscow.com)
>Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:19:29 -0800 (PST)
>Message-ID: <39ADCF833E74D111A2D700805F1951EF0CF24ECB@RED-MSG-06>
>From: John Guyer <johnguy@microsoft.com>
>To: "'Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM'" <Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM>,
> vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: impeachment
>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 08:18:13 -0800
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2524.0)
>Resent-Message-ID: <"3DycnD.A.XfG._Jli2"@whale.fsr.net>
>Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
>X-Mailing-List: <vision2020@moscow.com> archive/latest/2085
>X-Loop: vision2020@moscow.com
>Precedence: list
>Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
>
>Scott,
>
>Thank you for the cogent response.
>
>I couldn't agree with you more that President Clinton was made to walk
a
>minefield. And I also agree that much of that minefield was created by
his
>own behavior, and choices.
>
>In our consideration, we do not want to be guilty of the fallacy of
false
>dilemma. There are many more reasons a person may lie, primarily to
protect
>oneself. I do not want to speculate on his motives or his reasonings
>because only he and God know his heart. However, "You know a tree by
its
>fruit.." and there has been a lot of bad fruit on that tree. I don't
>believe that he was protecting his family when he purjered himself. If
he
>truly cared about his wife, he would not have started down the road
that led
>the cover up.
>
>For the sake of discussion, I am willing to grant our President the
most
>favorable motive for this and say that he was protecting his family.
Does
>that change the issue?
>
>I don't believe so. We, as a culture consider lying another tool in
the
>toolkit to use when necessary (I am speaking of us as culture, not of
you in
>particular). If we believe it is wrong, it is a minor offense at best.
>That was one thing I heard continually when this issue first broke.
"They
>have all lied. What's the big deal?"
>
>I don't agree with that. Deception in general is a tool of warfare.
It is
>tool to be used in the waging of war against an enemy. Are the
American
>people President Clinton's enemies? Is our justice system his enemy?
>
>I believe you can tell the truth and still protect someone's feelings
(e.g.
>"Do you like my new hat.") and you can tell a lie and still hurt their
>feelings. In the case of the lie to protect someone's feelings, you
are in
>fact wounding yourself as well as them.
>
>You also asked the question whether justice has been served or not. I
agree
>that President Clinton, his family, and many other families have been
>punished severely already. Perhaps justice has been served. The
problem is
>that this is has long stopped being a question of justice, and has
become a
>more fundamental question of fitness to lead. There is no question in
my
>mind that justice WILL be served, whatever the outcome in the Senate.
I am
>not advocating that specific punishment must be served for this to end
>properly. I do not seek to punish President Clinton. That is not my
job,
>nor my interest.
>
>My question is a more basic one. How do the impeachment detractors
find
>President Clinton still fit to lead, when he has used a tool of war
against
>the people and the system he is sworn to serve?
>
>P.S. If this discussion belongs somewhere else, please don't hesitate
to
>tell me so.
>
>-JG-
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM
[mailto:Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 12:08 PM
>To: John Guyer; vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: impeachment
>
>
>Agreed that the behavior of the Democrats has been every bit as
>reprehensible as the Republicans on top of the already incredibly poor
>conduct our Commander in Chief, Monica, Linda Tripp, and Ken Starr.
I'm
>wondering if the Senate can salvage some respectability out of this
mess
>and come up with some bipartisan solution of conviction, acquittal, or
even
>some sort of a plea bargain as is commonly used by our system of
justice.
>
>It's awfully tough to put politics aside in this matter since the whole
>thing has been political from the start. However, I'll take my best
shot.
>Personally, I have not ever testified under oath in a deposition or in
a
>court room so looking back at the times that I was less than truthful,
>there were essentially two main motivating factors...one was to protect
>someone's feelings and the other was to screw over a buddy. In Bill
>Clinton's case, my feeling is that he was forced to walk through a
>minefield full of political, legal, and moral traps set by his own
conduct
>and pounced on by Paula Jones' legal team armed with information from
Linda
>Tripp and a doggedly determined prosecutor also armed with information
from
>Linda Tripp. It's not all that surprising to me that with him knowing
that
>his supposedly sealed testimony from the Jones deposition would be
aired in
>entirety to the general public, that he would answer his questions
>carefully and evasively rather than come out and tell all about his sex
>life to the detriment of his wife and daughter.
>
>At this point, the argument could be made that justice has already been
>carried out. The Jones case has been tossed out of court and now has
been
>settled to her satisfaction to the tune of $850,000. Thus, she has
>received her justice. Monica, who comitted undeniable perjury by
filing a
>perjurious affidavit has been given the almost unheard of deal of
>transactional immunity (where's the justice in this???). Bill Clinton
has
>received the harshest rebuke that can be meted by the House of
>Representatives.
>
>My question for impeachment and removal from office supporters is
>this...politics aside, with the Jones case settled and House
impeachment,
>hasn't justice been carried out far enough on this matter?
>
>-SD
>
>At 09:14 AM 12/29/98 -0800, John Guyer wrote:
>>Scott,
>>
>>You are certainly correct in stating that the Republicans are just as
>fallen
>>as the Democrats. I believe we can all agree on that point.
>>
>>My question for President Clinton's supporters (or shall we say
impeachment
>>detractors) has to do with the role of the President. What does it
mean
>to,
>>"..defend the constitution.." if not to support the very justice
system
>that
>>guarantees our freedoms?
>>
>>"..tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," are
specific
>>words with specific meaning. If these words become meaningless, then
so
>>does our justice system. That is why it is a felony to take that oath
and
>>then violate it.
>>
>>Politics aside, how do the impeachment detractors explain this?
>>
>>Feeling very out of touch with the 70% that approve,
>>
>>-JG-
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM
[mailto:Scott_Dredge@BayNetworks.COM]
>>Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 1:51 PM
>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: impeachment
>>
>>
>>I couldn't agree more that the impeachment of William Jefferson
Clinton had
>>absolutely nothing to do with sex. The impeachment was firmly based
on
>>power, politics, and partisanship. The Republicans had a slim
majority in
>>the House of Representatives and that was all the power they needed to
>>trump up charges against a President of an opposing party and hasten a
lame
>>duck party line impeachment vote before their ranks decreased even
further
>>in the new Congress. It's no surprise to me that prior to 1994 the
>>Republicans had not controlled both houses of Congress as they have
quickly
>>proven that they are irresponsible and reckless in wielding this power
by
>>focussing it on a presidential impeachment instead of on a domestic
agenda.
>> By the way, doesn't every outgoing generation lament that we're all
going
>>to hell in a handbasket because the incoming generation doesn't know
right
>>from wrong and you can tell this by their music (if you can call it
music)?
>>
>>-SD
>>
>>
>>At 04:54 PM 12/26/98 -0800, Stewart Schell wrote:
>>-- Snip --
>>The paper today (liberal, of course) states that both defendants and
>>accusers agree to all of the impeachable offenses. This case has
really
>>affected my life as it appears that our current generation
(middle-aged
>>hippies?) do not know right from wrong. Unfortunately it has
absolutely
>>nothing to do with sex. After our country is flushed down the toilet
from
>>the follies of the Clintons maybe they will understand, but I doubt
it.
>>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Back to TOC