Henry Hyde (who, to judge from his political history, slew Henry Jeckyl in infancy) had an affair some 30 odd (and they must have been) years ago. The reaction from Congress was predictable in this day of utter contempt for the press (granted, the press has been earning contempt at a sickening pace):Call out the FBI! How dare someone air our dirty laundry when we're airing someone's dirty dress?
But the reaction from some of the media has been surprising. They've been tut-tutting about those impudent Internet journalists (the story broke in the online magazine Salon) bringing up 'old news' and embarassing this 'respected' conservative. Respected by whom? Certainly not by anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which, I admit, eliminates most politicians and most journalists.
Look, people (and I use the term loosely):Henry "Studmuffin" Hyde was one of the chief architects of the CDA -- indeed, he proposed a version that would have made the Exon bill look like a manifesto on free speech. The 'man' is a vomitous, verminous, mud-crawling, book-burning piece of repellent fecal matter with the ethics of a particularly corrupt weasel and the compassionate tolerance of Torquemada. And if there's evidence (and there is, and the festering pile of rotting flesh that is Henry Hyde hasn't denied it) that he was making the beast with two backs with someone other than his lawful spouse, this evidence should be dragged up and flung in his hypocritical face again, and again, and again. He should be pilloried, drawn and quartered, and then burnt at the stake by the media -- given precisely the forgiveness, tolerance, and compassion he has given to others. Check his record. You will find he is a continual sponsor and advocate of laws controlling other peoples' sexual behavior. Hey, Henry:"Thou shalt not commit adultery" is one of the Top Ten. Most of what YOU call sinful didn't even make the list.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Lizard says:Let he who has spent his career casting stones have them shot back at him from a linear accelerator.
Nor should the press stop there. It's not often I quote the Bible, but I shall:"There is none righteous, no, not one." Go to it, you slavering leprous hordes of journalistic jackals! Dig up the dirt, the sleaze, the scandal, the slime, and plaster it across the front page for all to read. Let's find out that Ted Kennedy has a thing for sheep, that Jesse Helms subscribes to "Advocate", and that Dianne Feinstein has a vibrator shaped like a gun. (Preceeding examples are, of course, purely fictional. I hope.) Let us expose all, figuratively and literally.
Now, some may cry that if only saints can hold office, we shall have no politicians at all. Lizard says:This is a problem? But in any event, it's not true. What we will have is a Congress composed of people who will not be able to pontificate and moralize, because all of their sins will be public knowledge. We will have a Congress that will do what government was supposed to do in the first place. What's that? No, not provide health care, or fund women pouring chocolate on themselves, or invade any country led by someone with a chest full of self-awarded medals. The purpose of government is simply and clearly stated.
"We hold these truths to be self evident:That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...and that to SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men..."
That's it. The sole, only, singular, and lone purpose of government is to protect our rights. It is an abomination that most political activity of the past few decades has been attempts to protect our rights FROM THE GOVERNMENT. And, bringing this round again, one of the leading dismantlers of our rights has been the 'esteemed' Mr. Hyde. So if anyone DESERVES to be eaten alive by the aformentioned leprous jackals, it is him.
(Quick Addendum:It just came to my attention that "Dr. Laura", a radio talk-show host noted for her virulent advocacy of pre-marital celibacy and post-marital fidelity* has just sued to stop nude photos of her from being posted on the net, said photos taken during (wait for it) an affair she had with a married man (she was also married at the time) back in the rollicking 70s. And so it goes...)
*There's nothing overly wrong with either, nothing overly right with either, either (Assuming, in the latter case, all partners are informed and consenting). The point is not the correctness of opinions, but hypocrisy. And there's also nothing wrong with changing your mind, with growing out of or into views -- PJ O'Rourke, after all, was a flaming leftist back in the 60s, until he started wandering the world and seeng what leftism in practice actually DID to people. But he never tried to hide his past. The Hydes and Lauras of the world, have. THAT is what makes them hypocrites.
This is the point when I ought to make some Dark Shameful Confession about the sins I once committed which I now preach against. Unfortunately, I've pretty much always been a selfish bastard and it's damn hard for me to remember any acts of altruism or compassion I've practiced in the past which I now regret. (Remember:Doing nice things for people you actually care about (or just want to bonk) ISN'T altruism -- you get pleasure from helping those you like or love (or want to get into the sack).) Damn. I really can't think of any act of significant kindness (more than, say, giving someone directions on the street) which wasn't at least partially and quite consciously motivated by some sort of self-interest, albeit sometimes a fairly abstract and diffuse self interest (i.e, pitching in during a crisis so that I could avoid having people whine at me for NOT pitching in once the crisis was over). I'll keep reviewing my life, and post if I think of something.
Addendum II:"But what about PERJURY? Isn't that serious?" Yes, it is. Indeed, I once advocated that people who commit perjury when serving as a witness be convicted of the crime they lied about. However, as with many things, there are perspectives. Lying about seeing someone else commit a murder, or the circumstances of a rape, is an incredibly serious offense that should be treated as significant criminal violation. Lying about getting a (consensual) blow job from an (adult) woman is not. Consider that in nearly all civil cases, it comes down to one persons word against another. The housepainter says Mrs. Jones told him "use green paint", Mrs. Jones swears she said blue. The jury will ultimately rule in favor of one of them, implying the other was lying. Is the loser in every civil trial jailed for perjury? No. Likewise, divorce cases, custody battles, etc, involve a tremendous amount of, if not outright prevarication, then selective recall and linguistic intepretations that would have Samuel Johnson spinning in his grave. We don't jail every estranged husband or embittered mother.
When you make trivial actions into felonies, you do not promote the rule of law, presumably a conservative goal -- you destroy it. The result is a trivialization of the meaningful. When feminist activists started putting the occasional wolf whistle or crude joke on the same level as direct rape, they did not make people take sexism seriously -- they turned rape into a joke. If Clinton is convicted of perjury for his very trivial offense, it will turn the law into even more of a twisted farce than it is now.
Addendum The Third:Rep. Livingston, I presume? And between when I wrote this and now, yet another one has fallen -- Livingston, once heir to a Newt, is now ending his career. You would think those who had committed sins would be more circumspect about damning others, just to avoid this sort of embarassment, but it seems that despite all their readings of the Bible, the Religious Reich have never heeded Christ's warning not to criticize the splinter in your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own.
Back To Main Page