• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

One of my pet peeves and chronic frustrations is that “… some
people just don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict their
preconceived opinions.” This is not a disease which inflicts only
socialists/liberal democrats, and it is not a contemporary anomaly.
H.L. Mencken (the Bard of Baltimore) observed, “The psychologists and
the metaphysicians wrangle endlessly over the nature of the thinking
process in man, but no matter how violently they differ otherwise they
all agree that it has little to do with logic and is not much
conditioned by overt facts.” I guess if I did a tad more research I
could probably find a similar quote from a pundit contemporary to
Cicero.

I have been a severe critic of the current administration. As a
result, there are those who incorrectly assume my commentary and
criticism is motivated by partisanship. It is not. I consider myself
to be an equal opportunity offender. My professional and personal
objective has been to focus on WHAT is right or wrong rather than WHOM.
As fellow New Englander Henry David Thoreau asked, “Rather than love,
than money, than fame, give me truth.”

The greatest challenge for any observer of this current
administration has been to find the truth — about ANYTHING. Pick a
controversy, any Clinton controversy:

 

  • The Draft

     

  • Whitewater, Castle Grande et al.

     

  • Strange death of Vince Foster

     

  • Bimbo du jour-gate

     

  • Strange death of Jim McDougal

     

  • Filegate

     

  • Strange death of … pick one — the list is long

     

  • Juanita Brodderick

     

  • Drug use

     

  • Danny Williams

     

  • Monica Lewinsky

     

  • Wag the dog

     

  • Wag it again

     

  • Chinagate

     

  • Executive Orders

     

  • Abuse of power under the color of authority

Hell, any list is going to be too long. THAT’s part of the
problem. We have become desensitized to the egregious misconduct, lies,
obfuscation, and presidential BS — which has become not the exception
but the rule.

View any of the above litany and apply dialectic. Invariably the
“thesis” is probably the truth. The “antithesis” is the original
Clinton story. The “synthesis” is the homogenized commingling of as
little truth as possible with as much spin as possible to create the
“official” mainstream media first draft of history.

Syndicated columnist Jack Anderson recently demonstrated the benefits
of turning over stones. His staff made a routine request of Wellesley
College that resulted in more substance than academic hubris usually
yields. In the course of doing a story on Hillary Clinton, his staff
requested a copy of her 1969 senior thesis from Wellesley College. No
big deal. Not like he was requesting Rose law firm billing records that
disappeared for two years only to mysteriously show up on the wicked
witch’s reading table. It was a simple, routine request, especially
since usually college theses are available to anyone and normally
considered public record. Not, however, in this case. Apparently, the
current Wellesley president (a long time personal bud of Hillary) had
created a new rule in 1992. The new rule reportedly, is that “… the
college would seal the senior theses of any Wellesley grads who were
either the first lady or the president of the United States.”

Hey, rules are rules. So team Anderson figures, “OK, can you just
tell us the ‘subject’ of the paper?” College says, “No.” This is
supposed to be a top-shelf bastion of academia, a collection of the best
and brightest — smart people. Perhaps some alum might want to suggest
to Wellesley they add a course on “Consequences.” Nothing fancy. Keep
it simple: action/reaction … good begets good … bad creates negative
consequences. Maybe somewhere on the entire faculty of Wellesley they
could find a Ph.D. capable of communicating the concept to students.
Maybe. …

So what started as a routine research question morphs into an
intrigue. By the way, here’s a quick flash for the scholarly sycophants
of Wellesley: Denying a reporter a student’s senior thesis, or even
acknowledging the topic/subject virtually guarantees the data you desire
to withhold WILL be discovered — and reported. Anderson asked
if the new policy had been enacted at Clinton’s request? Again, no
answer. Did those fools really think Jack Anderson was going to say,
“I’m so terribly sorry. Of course I understand that a 30-year-old
college paper needs to be protected for reasons of national security. I
am so sorry to have troubled you. Thank you for your time and please
forgive me for imposing.” I don’t think so.

Rather, the stonewall at Wellesley’s stonewall suggested not a mere
paragraph, and not a single story … there was something more. For
openers, it wasn’t a research assistant that contacted Hillary’s press
manipulators, it was an intrigued Anderson. He was assured it was no big
deal: “hakuna matatta.” He is promised that he’ll get a copy of the
college paper, AND an explanation of why it had been sealed. And, oh
yeah, the check’s in the mail.

Well, days turn into weeks, the weeks multiply and Jack has received
… jack! Eventually he was told not only that no copy would be
forthcoming but that no explanation would be given. They left out the
“eat rat excrement and die,” but it was implied.

Anderson is a professional muckraker of considerable experience and
success. He “don’t need no stinking badges …” or academic
imprimatur. He eventually found what he wasn’t even originally looking
for. Hillary’s thesis, was a critique of Lyndon Johnson’s “War On
Poverty” programs. Her conclusion: Community-based government
antipoverty programs don’t work.

So why try to hide that? Hell, it was one of the very few things
about which she was correct. Her national health-care debacle,
notwithstanding the heavy mantles of secrecy were (and are) a monumental
embarrassment. No one really believes her cattle futures success was
anything other than insider info. Why not resurrect a 30-year old
college paper revealing the perceptive insights of even the
undergraduate wonk?

Words have meaning, and there are positive and negative consequences
to what we do, what we write and what we say.

President Clinton said on Saturday that the official policy toward
gays in the military (Don’t ask/Don’t tell”) was a failure. He said it
was “out of whack” and that military leaders were not carrying it out as
he intended and as they promised in 1993. The problem was he intended
the problem to go away and/or be ignored. The military had the
impossible task of trying to implement bad policy.

Clinton’s comments echoed those of Hillary … kinda.

So why all the secrecy about a 30-year-old college paper which states
the obvious: Community-based government antipoverty programs don’t
work? Well fast forward to now; President Clinton recently called for
federal funding for a number of … community-based government
antipoverty programs.

What was it Thoreau said? “Rather than love, than money, than fame
… give me truth.” Sorry pal, truth is/was both the first victim of
war … and the Clinton administration.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.