California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: January 30, 1999
Faculty on the Site.
"Ten Real Reasons to Impeach Clinton"
Gephardt's Speech in Support of Censure, Dec. 19
The Starr Trap
The "High Price of Candor" in Politics
A Black Feminist's Critique of Support for Clinton
"Kenneth Starr-The Full Story": A Narrative Teaching Perspective
You'll have to link on Kenneth Starr at top left frame of page.
Richard A. Gephardt, House Democratic Leader
Congressional Record - About the Congressional Record
Congressional Record Search
Gephardt's Speech to the House on December 19, 1998.
Try the search "no to intolerance" for the congressional Record in Thomas
Click on Search ZNet, which is on a navigation table very near the top of the homepage. In the search dialogue box, type impeach AND clinton
Should you have difficulty in accessing the Zinn article on impeachment,
Alan Dershowitz, "Leading the President Astray," in either the NY Times or the LA Times on January 25, 1999: Dershowitz lays responsibility for the legal niceties of this imbroglio at the feet of the President's lawyer, Bob Bennett. The argument is that the client, in this case the President, ultimately makes the decision, not the lawyer. That is what Bennett has said in defense of his own actions in advising Clinton. But Dershowitz impressively adds more here: Dershowitz did more than advise. He interpreted his client's meaning, translated that incorrectly to the Court, then wrote to the Court disclaiming his interpretation..
Dershowitz says of Bennett: "He should have written to the judge acknowledging that he had failed in his duty as a lawyer to investigate what Lewinsky meant by 'sexual relationship' before he characterized it." The editor of the American Medical Association Journal, an eminent and respected editor, was just fired for publishing a report that indicates that many college age people do not consider "oral sex" as a "sexual relationship." Bennett did not investigate the meaning. He imputed meaning to his client and to Lewinsky. He should have clarified that the misstatements to the Court were his imputed meanings.
The tragedy here is that the law presently provides no forum in which Bob Bennett is called to answer such charges as Dershowitz has made. Sometimes not having a forum is a real detriment - no place for your voice to be heard. But sometimes having the right to hide behind "no official forum that deals with that" means an unfair exercise of the privilege of belonging to this select group of the law. What does that mean to discourse? Not only must we deal with the problem of "silencing," but also with the problem of the right to "hide behind a silence that is permitted by privilege." This problem is particularly acute in a "supervised society" in which supervisors are allowed to invoke this privilege, thus blocking all feedback from those who are so supervised.
Connie Bruck, "Life of the Party," p.30, the New Yorker, January 25, 1999.
Bruck reports on the relationship between Gail Zappa, Frank Zappa's widow, and Larry Flynt. They are good friends. They support Bill Clinton. They argue against the hypocrisy of the current impeachment battle, insisting that Bill Clinton is more like one of the people than most recent presidents. "Listening to Gail talk about Clinton lends further resonance to the popular notion that what is being played out in the Clinton-impeachment process is in large part a cultural war that started some thirty years ago."
Sounds about right. Much todo about so little, and about that which we traditionally respect as private. Someone said recently "Imagine Harry Truman in Clinton's position!" Whenever there is so much todo, sociologists begin to look for some underlying pattern that is tearing at the many sides of the issue. The cultural war, reflected in our response to Vietnam, is certainly just such an underlying pattern.
Is it all really about this cultural war? For me, that's too close to Enlightenment, as though there is some reality out there to explain all this. No, I don't think so. But I think it might help us to think about the issues on these many different levels. The issues, like the people espousing them, are complex. We must not oversimplify and force them into any categories that come readily to mind. I think our problem is that we need to deepen the social context far more than we need to expose it, categorize it, supervise it. We need to get used to complexity. This paragraph is jeanne's personal analysis. You may cite it. But whether or not I'm an authority depends on who you cite it to.
Klein article on "Impeachment Politics, Shrewdly Practiced" from The New Yorker, Feb.1, 1999 issue. No real e-mail or Web connection, but some articles are posted,
as well as the Table of Contents. Tells you to snail-mail! Added January 30, 1999.
Klein focusses on the State of the Union address and the President's skill at the very political marketing going on in our government. Once, Klein says, the Republicans were superb at such political marketing, as when George Bush was elected. But now, the Republicans fare badly against the present skills of the Democrats.
Notice Klein's description of how the Republicans who stayed away, like Hyde, who simply didn't appear. Armey and DeLay, House Majority Leader and Whip, did appear, and were caught by the camera looking like "singularly unattractive spoilsports."
I'll finish this later. Klein is complaining about performance, presentation, the co-optation of rituals. Compare that to flag waving to support the President. More later. Nag me. jeanne