> ----------
> From: Brett Lorenzen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 7:19 AM
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > Now Henry Hyde, Republican chair of the House Judiciary Committee,
> who is
> > > going to chair the committee to impeach the President and whom
> only a few
> > > days ago was constantly described as one of the most respected men
> in
> > > Congress, has also turned out to have had an adulterous affair. He
> was outed
> > > in Salon, the online magazine. Hyde's career is dead too.
> >
> > I doubt their careers are dead.
>
> yeah, agree there. Burton might go down for being so pompous about
> things, but Hyde has too much respect in DC to go down over a 30 year
> old story.
>
agreed -- but dammit, you can't go around yelling about other people --
when you have similiar skeletons in your own closet. and yes, i know
it's been done for years -- but bloody enough is enough. if nothing else
comes out of this but an awareness/ceasation of hypocrisy, it might have
been worth all the millions.
> > Monicagate, as some congresscritter
> > FINALLY said on PBS, is not about sex, it is about lies, perjury and
> the
> > obstruction of justice.
>
> Speaking of which, why the hell isn't anyone charging her with
> blackmail
> and extortion? At least Linda Tripp is going to spend some time in a
> maryland jail (if the state AG has his way) for the illegal tapings.
>
THANK YOU.
I was reflecting this morning about how well Monica has positioned
herself as a victim. And how all the media attention/online rants seem
to be about Clinton. This woman is poison -- and frankly, I have *no*
sympathy for her.
As for Linda Tripp -- this is the first I've heard that she is actually
going to be prosecuted. Yeah. And what about her moral indiscretion --
figuratively screwing a 'friend' -- why is that any less horrendous an
indiscretion?
> > > The Congress is in terror over the what they've unleashed. Any cub
> reporter
> > > can bring down a major politician. It only takes an email now to
> the Drudge
> > > Report www.drudge.com. That's the impact of the Internet on
> politics.
> >
> > I doubt the Drudge Report is much believed, likely not more
> than
> > supermarket tabloids claiming Nostradamus predicts the end of the
> world,
> > or that President Kennedy haunts the white house. They are there for
> > entertainment purposes only, not for news.
>
> Agreed there. Next time I hear someone cite the Drudge report for
> news,
> I'm quoting Howard Stern back at them :
>
ummmm... guys, i'm not sure you two are in touch w/Mainstream America. I
wouldn't go far out on that "no one believes the tabs" limb...
For those that don't subscribe ... here's an over-the-atlantic view from
NUA's editor ....
<excerpt>
In my opinion the Net was sullied by the US government's publication of
that report.
</excerpt>
******************************************************************
NUA INTERNET SURVEYS NUA INTERNET SURVEYS NUA INTERNET SURVEYS
Weekly free email on what's new in surveys on the Internet
By Nua Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/
*******************************************************************
September 15th 1998 Published By: Nua Limited Volume 3 No. 30
********************************************************************
EDITORIAL
********************************************************************
Welcome to another weekly edition of Nua Internet Surveys. This
newsletter
provides information on surveys and reports on the Internet, and is
brought
to you by Nua - one of Europe's leading Internet consultancies and
developers.
When the Internet held up to an unprecedented surge in traffic on Friday
last, initially I felt proud. Proud that 20 million Americans had used
the
Internet to gain full access to information which they could not have
accessed so readily in any other medium. And proud that the Internet
held
up to the onslaught in traffic. Like the opening night of the world's
biggest play, the Net performed fabulously.
The publication of the Starr report and the subsequent visiting of the
site
by 12 percent of the population seemed to be a testament that the
Internet
is no longer the domain of weirdos, computer geeks, dodgy entrepreneurs
and
sex fiends. Rather, it has become the medium chosen by Congress to
publish
one of the most controversial documents in the history of US politics,
all
in the name of constitutional rights and the Freedom of Information Act.
Then I began to think about the nature of the document and the real
reason
why those 20 million people (of whom some two thirds were male)
scrambled
online to access it.
While the decision to publish the Starr report online was a huge
endorsement of the Internet itself, the report's real attraction for
millions of Americans was in its sexual explicitness. Ordinary American
people logged on to find out what exactly happened in that dark corridor
next to the Oval Office. The report's publishers knew that.
If publishing the report is anything other than an attempt to humiliate
the
leader of the US, and effectively the leader of the Western World, I'll
eat
my socks. If that document was published purely for the good of the
American people, because it was in their interest to know the "full
facts"
or because it was within their constitutional rights, I'll eat my PC. In
my opinion the Net was sullied by the US government's publication of
that
report.
Incidentally, it was a Republican politician, Senator John McCain from
Arizona, who advocated the mandatory introduction of filters to all
schools
and libraries benefiting from State grants. This proposed legislation
was
in the interests of protecting children from the alleged abundance of
"unsuitable" content readily available to children on the Net. There was
no
warning on the Starr Report even though the bulk of the document
comprised
lurid sexual details involving the President.
It seems that the very same legislators who in the past have become very
animated about "immoral" and "indecent" content published on the Net,
have
been the first to use the Net to expose the private life (read sex life)
of
one of the world's most powerful men. Perhaps they are still not able to
think of the Internet without thinking "sexual perversion".
It's a pity that this is the first major government document to go
online
in such a public and well publicised way. It's pretty obvious that the
surge in traffic was fuelled by the report's sexual content. And it's
pretty obvious that those who fought to get it published online wanted
to
ridicule President Clinton and force him to resign.
In the end, this week's much publicised use of the Net by US government
fficials does little to quench the theory that the Internet is home to
sex
maniacs, pornographers, weirdos and paedophiles (sic).
A final note: I am not American, and I don't have any right, or wish, to
access that document. Yet my Internet experience was held to ransom for
up
to six hours on the day of the report. The Internet exists outside of
the
US and the use of the medium for what essentially amounts to US domestic
problems is, in my opinion, arrogant and irresponsible.
Is mise le meas,
Sorcha Ni hEilidhe.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
