I promise this isn't about sports, but sports was the impetus for this diatribe. I was discussing the Roger Clemens situation with other people online when the discussion disintegrated into a political discussion about the merits of Congress. I won't bore you with the facts of the case, so I'll boil it down to its simplest ingredients. Roger Clemens allegedly lied to Congress, so Congress has charged him with perjury. He was formally indicted and pleaded on all charges in the last week and a half.
As someone once said, these are the facts of the case and they are indisputable. Except, some fans seem to think Roger deserves a pass because people in Congress are lying sacks of excrement. At least, that's what they say. According to that line of thinking, following the rules that Congress establishes only matters if those in Congress reflect the feelings of those individuals. In other words, if he had lied to a group of conservatives then all bets are off and throw the book at him.
It got so bad as for one person to suggest that throwing Clemens in jail would be a miscarriage of justice because Bill Clinton got away with perjury in 1999. I guess. Legal experts have exhausted themselves pointing out why Clinton did not commit perjury even if he lied about Monica, but I'm not getting into a semantic argument because that's really not the point. The point of this whole excursion is to search our own souls to see what the state of decorum and respect is in this country.
Paul Krugman wrote an interesting piece earlier about the tough road Obama will have. My wife read and was incensed. See, she is a raging independent (right of center) that thinks both sides are guilty of this. Krugman argued that the 2010s are just the 1990s on steroids. He did skip the 2000s and that irked her. She thought that progressives, liberals, and Democrats were just as mean in regards to Bush as Republicans have been to Clinton and Obama.
On the one hand, I immediately disagreed because I recalled how easily the Democrats caved on the Patriot Act and war in Iraq. On the other hand, I remember the call for investigations and we've even had those arguments ourselves. This is not an admission of anything except for the fact that I felt the need to step back and ponder my own attitudes. One of the chief lessons we were taught in school is that even if you disagree with the president, Congress, or Supreme Court you always respect the office. I felt like I did that during the Bush years and I think most liberals, progressives, and moderates did the same.
However, I also recognize that one's man's garbage is another man's treasure. One man's Monicagate is another man's Watergate. Investigations we deem to be of vital importance are seen as obstructionism by the other side and vice versa. Is there a fair way to arbitrate what is a good investigation and what is simply balderdash? The final conclusion I came to even before the soul-searching hasn't changed. Lying to Congress is lying to Congress. Even if all 535 members cheat on their spouses, cheat on their taxes, and root for the Cowboys, you still can't lie to Congress.
Good point,
With the Repubtilians what they portray as their bottom line morality is personal integrity. Thus, the neverending whining about BJ Bill. On the other hand, if a fellow Repub wants to usurp the constitution as it applies to the public good (i.e. mass murder in the form of war, torture, dishonesty, usury, extortion, exploitation) well, that's ok if it doesn't mess with the white folks too much. I think Liberals tend to pursue the opposite tack.
Where Mon Clemens falls within that spectrum, somebody else can decide. In fact, those freaking idiotic Repubtilian lackeys can have an orgasm mulling it over for all I care!