"The Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with,..."-- A major fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, quoted in the NYT.
Hanging out with cultish NewAge liars - that's not:
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Unintentionally Accurate NewAge Quote Of The Day: A Clinton Fund-Raiser To The NYT
"The Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with,..."-- A major fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton, quoted in the NYT.
Hanging out with cultish NewAge liars - that's not:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“People have often said about the Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them,” said one of Mrs. Clinton’s major fund-raisers. “The larger point in all of this is that the Clintons are the ultimate pragmatists in who they hang out with; if you can be useful to them, they will find a way to make it work.”
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing with that... but it's the same deal with virtually all politicians on both sides of the aisle. There's a reason for that old saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." :-) They're all whores, really.
Damn it, Connie, that's the level of cynicism I can't stand: I've met - personally met - some decent politicians and I've met some whores. They're not all the same. They're human beings. To say otherwise says more about the speaker (in this case, unfortunately, you) than it does about the people who may run for public office.
ReplyDeleteThe Clinton's, in my book, just happen to be more despicable than most people, period. I don't know how they can stand to show their faces in public after all the scandals, the public lying - their friends, like David Geffen, admitting they lie regularly - and all the women they've been betrayed. (Gavin Newsom did the same thing after screwing his best friend's wife: he adopted a slogan of "I'm not going anywhere!" like he's determined to force this evil down our throats, too, no matter what). I can't fathom why anyone would consider voting for them, except out of that poison well of cynicism.
It's heartbreaking to me.
CMC, of course you are right (notwithstanding the title of one of my all-time favorite books, PJ O'Rourke's Libertarian "Parliament of Whores"): not all politicians are whores -- any more than all attorneys are scum. There are some decent human beings in both politics and law who really want to do something to make life better for ordinary folks, not just the rich and powerful.
ReplyDeleteAs for politics, at the local/municipal and even the state levels, politicians often are able to effect changes that are actually helpful and are based on higher ideals than just helping the rich get richer. But due to the way our political system is structured, it's difficult for the "pure of heart" to rise to the top and really gain power in Washington without getting corrupted along the way by the need to obtain funding from someone -- anyone.
I do take issue with your implication that all of the "evil" is on the side of the Democrats and/or the "liberals." Maybe I am reading you wrong, and if so, I apologize. But if I am reading you correctly, that's as wrong as saying that all politicians are whores. I don't think the Clintons are angels, but then again, the Bush dynasty has done things that might make the Clintons look fairly pure by comparison.
Like it or not, there is a great deal of cynicism about politics in this country, and no, it is NOT more of a reflection of the cynics themselves than of the system. It is equally, if not more, a reflection of the many shortcomings in our political system. I know it's a two-way street, and we get the government that we deserve, etc. etc., but trashing the Clintons (and "the liberals") isn't going to make things any better.
My take on things is that we live in a de facto plutocracy, and that's the case no matter who is in power ("everybody knows the fight is fixed / the poor stay poor, the rich get rich / that's how it goes / everybody knows"). This doesn't mean I've given up on the system entirely, or that I'm a total cynic. But I do think I am realistic.
CMC, my friend, I guess there are some things we're just going to have to "agree to disagree" about. The sad fact is that many people vote these days for "the lesser of two evils," not the better candidate.
I should qualify my last statement: many people vote for the candidate whom *they believe* to be the lesser of two evils.
ReplyDelete"I do take issue with your implication that all of the "evil" is on the side of the Democrats and/or the "liberals." Maybe I am reading you wrong, and if so, I apologize."
ReplyDeleteYou are, but it's cool. I will point out, though, that every major media outlet that's been busted for outright lying, multiple times, is on the Left: The NYT, the BBC, the New Republic, and on and on. The Right's press hasn't even been accused. Why? They don't have to stoop to Stalinist manipulation tactics. They think the truth will win out. Why the Left hasn't rejected them, after it was discovered they were lying to them, is beyond me.
"I don't think the Clintons are angels, but then again, the Bush dynasty has done things that might make the Clintons look fairly pure by comparison."
I've heard people saying that but they can't ever produce evidence. They say Scooter Libby released Valerie Plame's name - and it turns out to be Richard Armitage. That kind of thing. It's like they refuse to believe in honesty, insisting there's something going on when there isn't. Where's the beef?
Think about it - I gotta go - I'll catch you tonight.
One of the most depressing things I've discovered is that the occult outlook is built into the DNA of the 60's. It's insidious manifesto to subvert logic, reason, men, and tradition, has thrown the baby out with the bath water - destroying whatever good they produce. I see this, most clearly, when I look at blacks, and what became of the civil rights movement, or feminism and what's become of families.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way about politics. There's an idea that because Nixon committed some original sin, all politicians are like that - or that's just the way it is. It's a really simplistic way of looking at things - and totally wrong.
I've been a political junky for most of my life and, sure, there's bad stuff that happens in politics, but it's far outweighed by the good. A simple look around (both here and in the rest of the world) should be more than enough evidence of that - considering what the world was like before the US took the lead - but the outlook persists. For me, it's really immature.
Take the recent findings about the CIA:
Many people, buying into the occult outlook, choose to see their mistakes as simple proof the agency's incompetent; I, on the other hand, sympathize with how difficult it is to do a dangerous, life or death, job when agents are fumbling around in the dark.
Needless to say, I don't like the results of the 60's very much. That, drug-induced, extended childhood has allowed many of us to never grow up politically. The Left doesn't engage discussions - doesn't allow for engagement - but, instead, makes "demands" on everyone else (I just saw a story, yesterday, on California nurses "demanding" change in healthcare when, you and I know, nursing schools are steeped in occult practices like Therapeutic Touch.) Turning the tide on this way of thinking is probably going to take decades. And, in the meantime, we're all going to be driven near crazy.
Just like they are.
Yeah, I've written a few times on my blog about how the New-Wage is largely a product of the 1960s (though of course it has some roots in Victorian spiritualism as well... Chris Locke gets into that in more depth).
ReplyDeleteYet a part of me remains rather fond of some aspects of 1960s flower-power culture -- some of the music, some of the art, and the fact that once upon a time some of those people really believed in their hearts that their version of "love and peace" could make things better. In retrospect -- nonsense, perhaps. But some people really believed.
I confess I can't watch the movie "Flashback" (with Dennis Hopper and Kiefer Sutherland) without crying. I know, I'm really a sap.
But I still see the silly or stupid side of the 60s legacy very clearly, and I cover that on my blog. And yes, I see the truly dark side too -- not just in the general social (and political) trends, but I have also seen up close some tragic examples of the 1960s' legacy. I've seen how some of the druggies of the 1960s have raised damaged children who are even more drug-addled than they. Some of these children have paid with their health, their sanity, and even their lives for their parents' free-spiritedness.
And every day in my city, I see ragged middle-aged men on street corners, muttering to themselves and holding "Homeless" signs, and I can see them clearly as young hippies thirty-five or forty years ago, just trippin' out, man.
Not meaning to get the thread too far off course, but... you were right there at Ground Zero during the 40th anniversary Summer of Love Celebration in The City. What was that like?
"you were right there at Ground Zero during the 40th anniversary Summer of Love Celebration in The City. What was that like?"
ReplyDeleteI have no idea, C:
I was running the other way,...