February 4, 1899
Many have doubtless wondered (and several have inquired) what has happened to FRATRICIDE. Has Barbry finally gone around the bend? Are the pressmen on strike?
I had a little vignette all ready about having been kidnapped by Martians and forced to divulge all I know about Mozart and pre-natal intellectual development. I rejected that when I heard that it had already taken place in Georgia. Then I worked on a story where the President went before Congress and took the oath to testify, and when he did so, the entire Senate burst out in laughter, paroxysms of mirth, gales of cat-calls and raspberries, senators clutching their sides in uncontrollable seizures of cackling, hardened newsmen reduced to tears. That, too, seemed like wishful thinking, and besides, some clown of a political cartoonist already nailed that one.
The truth is, I have for months been tearing up perfectly good drafts of FRATRICIDE as, one after another, its wildest extrapolations, its most far-flung projections of the truth have been humbled into insignificance by the preposterous pronouncements of the President's defenders. Viz., after the presentation of the prosecution case by the House managers, the word from the White House, and thus from the supine news media, was, "There was nothing new in the presentation." Well, of course not! If there had been, the White House would have had a fit. "We need to move on," "We need to avoid a rush to judgement," "We need to go faster," "slower," etc., etc., have been trotted out on a daily basis in a kind of absurd, extended soliloquy that Samuel Becket would have been proud of.
Simply put, I cannot compete with that. With the White House spin machine so far beyond the bounds of rationality, it is impossible to formulate a meaningful satire. Like Bach's self-harmonizing music, the White House's positions are self-satirizing. Alas, it may be that the end of satire has come sooner than I predicted (see FRATRICIDE v3#5, Homily).
So henceforward, FRATRICIDE will consist exclusively in factual reporting and reasoned opinion. Attempts at humor will instantly be blue-penciled into oblivion.
By the way, some of you may have noticed the peculiar thing about the date in the masthead. I am told by our technical people that this is a manifestation of Y2K-1, a problem with the year prior to 2000. I am informed by the magazine's VP-Operations that the problem can be fixed over the next 60 to 90 days, and though I cannot for the life of me see the connection between this and the purchase of BMW's for each of the programmers, I have directed him to get the problem fixed as soon as possible. I only hope the budget is big enough. We spare no expense for our readers.
Here, in this little Bay,
Full of tumultuous life and great repose,
Where, twice a day,
The purposeless, glad ocean comes and goes,
Under high cliffs, and far from the huge town,
I sit me down.
For want of me the world's course will not fail;
When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and greatly shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.
... Coventry Patmore
Many speak the truth when they say that they despise riches, but they mean the riches possessed by other men.
... Charles C. Colton
A little note from physics: we are now pleased to rename Hubble's Constant to Hubble's Variable. It appears, according to some scientists, now, that the rate of the expansion of the universe is not constant, but is in fact increasing. This is certain to put a stick in few people's spokes. I foresee vast sums of government grants voted (by a body of people who have not yet, by and large, comprehended Newton) to read this cosmic rebus.
In consideration of our evolving understanding of reality, which is, I am given to understand, on the brink of magnificent fruition (as always), I am reminded of my dog. He is lovable, intelligent, and perceptive, but he has absolutely no capacity to understand certain things about the nature of reality. (Actually, this is pure presumption on my part: he may understand far more than I suppose, but may never have been moved to divulge that understanding in the appropriate forum.) Is it not hubris of the most extreme sort for Man to presume to form and compose a comprehensive understanding of reality, given the nature that Man shares with my dog?
I see no particular reason why the universe should not consist in a succession of such puzzles, each one more basic than its predecessor. The succession of puzzles need not be endless, or even very long; just long enough to occupy Man's collective mind until the universe is tired of Man and replaces him with something else.
In fact, the complexity of the universe may very well be God's way of saying to Man, "Fetch!"
NS: I'm Nicola Sacco...
BV: ... and I'm Bartolomeo Vanzetti.
NS: Welcome to the Sacco-Vanzetti News Hour on your local PBS
station. In our top story today, CNN/Time has withdrawn its
news story in which it claimed that Kenneth Starr is an
escaped federal prisoner who has served time for
embezzlement and child molestation, while secretly running
for President as a Republican. Charges that he was a direct
descendent of woolly mammoths were also withdrawn. Two
producers were fired at CNN, and Ted Turner reprimanded
himself. Time did not fire any of its staff and said that,
though the story was retracted, no apology would be issued.
Time would not confirm that its informant, with whom it had
worked on the story over six months, was Susan McDougall.
Bart?
BV: In a similar story, Nick, Newsweek has withdrawn its cover
story last week on President Clinton's Congressional Medal
of Honor. Blaming its informant, a Newsweek executive
admitted that the award claims were a hoax, "erring on the
side of invention over fact." He would only identify the
informant as "Socks." President Clinton, records now show,
never served in the military. Nick?
NS: In another twist to the ongoing Monica Lewinsky story, a
poll taken this week shows that Lewinsky should lose some of
those extra pounds. 61% of Americans polled suggested that
she lose 5 or more pounds, while 22% said she should lose
one to four pounds. Only 13% thought Lewinsky was at the
right weight, while 4% didn't know. The poll has a margin
of error of 30%. In a related poll, 77% thought President
Clinton was the right weight for a man of his height who is
"big-boned." Bart?
BV: Nick, according to the National Cornpone Polling Institute,
71% of Americans are saying that there are too many polls.
64% go on to say that too much of the news is made up of
polls. 82% of newswriters disagree, though. They believe
that the current mix of 61% poll data, 38% personality news,
and 1% hard news is just what the people are asking for,
according to a recent poll. Of the 18% who disagreed, 12%
suggested that the ratio should be one to five percent
lower, while 4% thought it should be more than five percent
lower. Nick?
NS: At the top of business news tonight, 72% of traders thought
the stock market was going up tomorrow, while only 18%
thought it would go down. Of market commentators, less than
half agreed with less than half of their competitors'
predictions. Now, here's Bart for a final comment.
BV: The new book deal being described for Hillary Rodham Clinton
[*****
Satire was attempted in this space and has been
summarily removed. --Ed.
*****]
mentioned, "It takes a Bank Account," as the proposed title.
NS: That's our news, tonight. For National Socialist Radio, I'm
Nicola Sacco...
BV: ...and for the Paid-for Bureau of Socialism, I'm Bartolomeo
Vanzetti.
Eye of Newt, tongue of Trent. One's gone; the other may not last long. Newt perished of conundrum. He could not figure out the puzzle: given the way in which he has disgraced himself and his office, why are Bill Clinton's numbers so high?
Here is a little Constitutional crisis fact quiz:
Impeachment is
a) criminal accusation
b) conviction
c) enough punishment
Removal from office is
a) punishment
b) pardon
c) immunity from prosecution
Censure is
a) signed by the President
b) immunity from prosecution
c) enough
Polls are
a) binding
b) in the Constitution
c) the people's will
If you chose d) none of the above for all four questions, you have made a perfect score and are now ready to interpret current events.
Personally, I have no problem believing that 70% of my fellow citizens are fools, politically, at least. Were that figure to rise to 95%, I would still have no problem, because the people are demonstrating, by their support for Bill Clinton, their disdain both for politicians and the political process in general. This is particularly true for the intelligentsia, who have marched lock-step in the President's support through the entire turgid quagmire of corruption and personal wickedness that dominated this year's political moonscape.
Newt, Trent, this is easy. You have not made the case for getting rid of the President. (Almost) everyone knows that he is a liar and a cheat. (Practically) no one believes the Republicans have a disinterested motivation in the impeachment of the President. How can this be?
The reason is this: the Republicans' claim that it is not "about sex" is, simply, ludicrous. It is unbelievable. Even the American public think that they can see right through that. It IS "about sex": it is about a reckless, ruthless President sodomizing a naive, love-struck intern (or a ruthless golddigger and whore, take your pick), not his wife, less than half his age, in the Oval Office, while supposedly conducting the people's business. The lies, the perjury, the obstruction of justice, the obfuscation, that all came later. It is the original sin that needs addressing. He spat on the people's trust. He should be removed for that alone.
The President's defenders know all this, and they are still deflecting a potential attack along these lines by referring to it as "consensual" and "personal", and particularly as "private". This strategy has the following advantages:
- Decades of left-wing propaganda have rendered all things "consensual" as innocent;
- Any concern that can be characterized as "personal" can be dismissed on the grounds that it is not connected with one's official duties, like wearing a strange form of underwear, and is therefore no one else's business;
- Not one person in 100,000 seems to understand "privacy": this right is asserted against the government by private individuals, not the other way around.
By promoting these sophistries, Bill Clinton's lawyers hope (and seem to be succeeding) to divert the public's attention from the plain fact that "high crimes and misdemeanors" means anything that the Congress wants it to mean. ("High crimes" are not crimes of a particularly bad sort, but rather, the kinds of crimes that only the holders of high office can commit. "Misdemeanors", on the other hand, means any bad acts.) Congress' interpretation is simply not subject to any kind of review, except at the ballot box.
"Consensual" in this context only means that no external coercion was applied, which if it were not so, would elevate the crime to assault or rape. Just because it is consensual does not mean that it is legal, let alone moral or ethical. There are, of course all sorts of things that are consensual but illegal, specifically forbidden by statute: trafficking in drugs, assisted suicide, prostitution, etc. The fact that the parties consented does not keep the act from being a crime. Government employees are specifically prohibited from exchanging sexual favors for career advancement. That crime is punishable by imprisonment, no matter that the parties consented. Of course, if all laws were respected to the degree that that one is, this would be a very easy-going country.
I notice that my "personal" business is not immune to scrutiny by the IRS. The fact that the nature and extent of the President's sexual relationship with the intern is "personal" would not seem to carry any weight in other contexts.
Finally, the expectation of privacy is a right to be asserted against the intrusion of government. By contrast, if your neighbor walks in on you while you are doing something God did not intend with his wife, not all the protestations in the world about privacy will prevent your experiencing the most acute public embarrassment, plus a good deal more, I should imagine. Citizens have the right to resist government on the grounds of the right to privacy (which is not in the Constitution, but which Justice Douglas says springs from the Constitution as a whole), and to resist each other to some extent on the same grounds. But government does not have any such right to assert against the citizens. And while it is not reasonable that public servants give up their rights to privacy entirely when they enter public service, the courts have shown that the boundaries are to be drawn very differently. The President, on publicly-owned property, on "company" time, was carrying on with some woman who was not his wife: there is no rational excuse for not considering these acts to be public, the subject of public record if they should ever come to light. No one's rights have been violated in the least.
Naturally, people are concerned for their rights, and they should be, far more than they typically are. But the President has no innate right to rule. His powers are lent by the people under the Constitution and the supervision of the Congress. It is high time the people took them back from this President. Besides, what's the problem with getting rid of him? There are plenty of presidents waiting to take his place. Just ask around.
The birth of the Houston octuplets has produced a sidebar of strange, almost bizarre, proportions. Initially, each news report of the octuplets delivery and progress was accompanied by a comment that certain parties were "disturbed" by the birth. Their disturbance amounted to the belief that large multiple births were costly (no denying that!) and, as a trend, represented a threat to economic and social stability by increasing population pressure. These notions have more recently been the subject of some op-ed pieces.
Kathleen Parker, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel: "If we do not stop making so many babies, ethical and religious discussions will become irrelevant. As we are praising the Lord and high-fiving over fetuses clinging to life at the cost of millions, we are on a collision course with self-destruction."
Now, there are so many things wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. But here are the top five: (1) Octuplets are far from being a trend; they are, in fact, unique; no such trend is even remotely in evidence; (2) All predictions of Malthusian disaster throughout history have, without exception, failed to materialize; the economic foundations of Malthus' conclusions have been shown to be nonsense; this presumably also goes for all his modern followers, Heilbrunner, Paul Erlich, and so on; (3) The notion that the USA or the world is on a collision course with some disaster is patently absurd; famines, food shortages, and starvation are conditions that are politically and economically driven, not problems of resources; (4) Making babies is the prerogative of parents, not governments; whenever government makes decrees about population control, it asserts tyrannical power; (5) It is easy to spend someone else's money; the city of Houston has determined in advance to spend its resources to preserve the lives of infants, particularly those in distress due to premature birth; clearly, the writer has something else that she would rather spend all that money on.
Miss Parker (how could such a person be married!) gives an irresistible clue to her underlying attitude by referring to the babies as "fetuses". This reduction of Man to a herd of animals that needs to be managed, and from which certain individuals can be sacrificed for the benefit of the group, is typical of socialism. "The greatest good for the greatest number," always needs to have a clause added to it: "through sacrificing a few." The ideal that we need instead is, "Liberty guaranteed for each person through the assertion of rights against the powers, ambitions, greeds, intrusions, demands, and tyrannies of governments everywhere."
Miss Parker concludes her diatribe with, "... it is going to take brains and sacrifice... to shift our cultural paradigm from a mindless, ain't-it-great, pro-growth mantra to a stalwart philosophy of controlled nongrowth. We might begin by limiting our 'miracles' [the fertility technology that produced the octuplets]." Well, we know who wants to do the controlling, don't we. The appalling diction of the last excerpt aside, it is a chilling apology for the kind of benevolent dictatorship that has been argued for by so many philosophers with imaginary vehicles for advancing the human race. Governments cannot be trusted with such power; were Miss Parker ten times so wise as she pretends, it would still not give her the right to rule us. Gott sei dank!
A little food for thought: a five-course meal, in fact:
Sentimentally virtuous people like Lord Halifax and Mrs. Roosevelt do far more harm in the world than recognisable villains. [Aleksandr] Solzhenitsyn has provided the perfect parable on this theme with his description of Mrs. Roosevelt's conducted visit to a labour camp where he was doing time. The estimable lady, who spawned the moral platitudes of the contemporary liberal wisdom as effortlessly and plenteously as the most prolific salmon, was easily persuaded that the camp in question was a humanely conducted institution for curing the criminally inclined. A truly wicked woman would have been ashamed to be so callous and so gullible.
... Malcolm Muggeridge, The Infernal Grove
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
... Elbert Hubbard
Children who have been taught, or conditioned, to listen passively most of the day to the warm verbal communications coming from the TV screen, to the deep emotional appeal of the so-called TV personality, are often unable to respond to real persons because they arouse so much less feeling than the skilled actor. Worse, they lose the ability to learn from reality because life experiences are more complicated than the ones they see on the screen, and there is no one who comes in at the end to explain it all... Conditioned to being given explanations, the "TV Child" has not learned to puzzle for one on his own; he gets discouraged when he cannot grasp the meaning of what happens to him and is thrown back once more to find comfort in predictable stories on the screen... This being seduced into passivity and discouraged about facing life actively, on one's own, is the real danger of TV, much more than the often asinine or gruesome content of the shows.
... Bruno Bettelheim, The Empty Fortress
The hostility of the common man toward the intellectual is of all times and places... The sentiment is so universal that anyone who sets himself against it soon knows that he is trying to resist a force of nature... Intellect is also hated because it is envied, and envied because it is felt as a sign or pretense of social superiority.
... Jacques Barzun, The House of Intellect
One lesson, and one lesson only, history may be said to repeat with distinctness; that the world is built somehow on moral foundations.
... James Anthony Froude
Yum, yum.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 3:02 PM
