disoriented

Scott Peterson — The Penalty Phase

Scott Peterson is guilty. He killed his wife Laci and their unborn child Connor. To most of us in the general public it was obvious that Peterson was guilty. His actions during the search for Laci were bizarre from the start. His relationship with Amber Fry and the taped phone conversations removed any doubt as to his guilt.

Of course when he was finally arrested, he was wearing a disguise, near the Mexican border. He had a pocketful of cash, survival gear and his brother's identification. Perhaps there really was an innocent explanation, but I failed to see it.

I was glad to see that the jury was not swayed by the defense mounted by his attorney, Mark Geragos.

There were a few tense moments because the judge instructed the jury that they had the option of finding Scott guilty of second degree murder. Many analysts thought that the second degree option was to give jurors an out. The thinking being that it would be hard to get a conviction in a largely circumstantial case. Fortunately the jury was more astute (even after three juror dismissals) than the judge gave them credit with.

Scott Peterson was found guilty of second degree murder in the death of his son Connor. He was also found guilty of first degree murder in Laci's death. The combination of a first degree conviction with a second degree conviction qualifies as a special circumstance under California law — making Scott eligible for the death penalty.

The trial now enters the penalty phase where witnesses on both sides make pleas for either leniency or  severity. In this spectacle of American Jurisprudence we can expect to see tearful testimony from Laci's family and friends.

With all due respect to the Rocha, and Peterson, families — I wish they would just shut up.

Of course it isn't the families' fault. It is the law that allows families to testify in the penalty phase of a trial.  They have been given the opportunity to express their grief and it is probably even good for them. The trouble is that it is not good for the system — it is not good for us.

The emotional testimony of the grieving families lessons the force of the rule of law. Consider this case. As radio talkshow host Sean Hannity noted on the air, in every picture of Laci she is always smiling. By all accounts she was a beautiful young woman full of life. She was also pregnant with their first child.

By contrast, Scott was a lying philanderer who murdered his pregnant wife and unborn child. After hearing this testimony, Scott will certainly get the death penalty.

In summary, because Scott is a scumbag and Laci was an angel, Scott will fry.

As much as I support the outcome — I think it demeans the sanctity of the law to let this sort of emotion guide this decision.

The problem is that while murder is a crime against the victim, we punish it because it is a violation of the rule of law. The severity of the punishment reflects our societal understanding of the severity of the crime. In our society, murder is (in many states) a capital crime punishable by death. The ultimate penalty is applied to violators of the ultimate law — the Sanctity of Life.

What if Scott Peterson had planned and carried out the murder of a street person. What if the victim had been an alcoholic old man with no family or dependents. During the penalty phase of the trial there would be no tearful appeals nor videos of the beautiful young smiling victim entertaining friends. The fact is that in such a case it would be harder to get a death penalty decision than in the Laci-Connor murders.

By allowing this sort of testimony, we as a society are sending the wrong message. We are sending the message that some lives are worth more than others. Scott Peterson committed a crime and if there were no government it would be to Laci's family to punish him. But in this great nation, governed by laws, Scott has violated The Law. We are not a nation of vigilantes.

Scott deserves to die, not because Laci was a good person — Scott deserves to die because he is a bad person.

Hunting Murders — Hate Crime?

This afternoon I heard radio talkshow host Michael Savage, in his vitriolic way, describe the Wisconsin hunting murders as a Hate Crime.  As savage puts it, you have  6 dead (and  2 wounded) whites and one live Hmong. This fits the definition of a hate crime.

Savage goes on to point out that the Hmong have never really adapted to life in America. The Hmong, he says, have formed their own communities and are largely unwilling to assimilate into our culture or learn English.

As a conservative  I like the idea of making this a hate crime. When Matthew Sheppard was murdered  it became a famous hate crime. Because Matthew Sheppard was gay. In this case, the victims are all white so it could not possibly be a hate crime.

Like Savage, I believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If violence against gays is a hate crime why isn't violence against whites?

The only problem is that I do not believe in Hate Crimes.

The idea behind hate crimes is that a crime commit ed out of hatred is somehow worthy of double punishment. Today 43 states and the District of Columbia have hate crime laws. I take issue with the very idea of hate crime laws.

I have two problems with hate crimes :

1.	Hate crimes are already crimes. For example, the murder of Matthew Sheppard was a murder. The criminals who commit ed the crime  already deserved the death penalty. The fact that hate was a motivation should not make a difference.
2.	Hate crime statutes, especially those in the 23 states and the District of Columbia that  include sexual preference are a form of incrementalism. They are part of a larger agenda to force society to accept homosexuality as normal.

I understand that in law, Mens Rea or state of mind is a factor in obtaining a conviction. But it seems backwards. Normally things like catching one's spouse in an affair is a mitigating circumstance. What if  one had an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals or Hmong or whites. Doesn't it follow that if one commited a crime against someone from one of these groups, the hatred or fear would be a mitigating factor.

I remember one of the cases that led to the current spate of Hate Crime legislation. The year was  1982. America's automakers were coming to grips with the tremendous demand for Japanese cars. Vincent Chin, a Chinese-American engineer, was at strip club two days before his wedding. An argument ensued and soon Chin was in a coma and in four days he was dead.

Chin and his friends left the bar. An unemployed auto worker and his son-in-law also left the bar and searched for Chin. When they found him, the beaten Chin to death with a Louisville Slugger baseball bat. The greatest injustice was yet to occur, in the trial that followed, Chins murderers received manslaughter convictions and probation. They spent no time in Jail for this heinous crime.

The problem here was not that Chin's killers acted out of racist motives. The problem was that a Detroit judge allowed a manslaughter plea in what should have been at least second degree and more likely a first degree murder case. (First degree since after the left the bar, the killers had time to cool off and had to plan to take the bat from their trunk.)

A judge who would not correctly apply the existing statute would have been no more likely to apply a hate crime statute. But the existing law, correctly applied would have been sufficient.

The other problem is that hate crimes are part of a brilliant strategy to make homosexuality seem normal in American society. If hate crimes are already crimes, it follows that any crime committed against a homosexual is already a crime. Therefore is can and should be prosecuted under existing statutes.

By adding sexual preference to state hate crime statutes, activists have succeeded in officially recognizing and protecting homosexuality. The danger is that such laws are a first step toward making it illegal to oppose homosexuality. Blogs like this one, churches (and yes mosques and synagogues) that preach against homosexuality even church schools may be in legal danger for teaching that homosexuality is wrong.

In the opinion of this dis-oriented author —the time is coming when churches who support the established biblical teachings against homosexuality will be in danger of losing their tax exempt, 501(c)(3)  status.

While the Wisconsin hunting murders fit the definition of a hate crime such statutes are unnecessary. The fact that the shooter is Hmong and the victims white shouldn''t make any difference.

Murder is already illegal in Wisconsin, unfortunately Wisconsin does not have the death penalty.

No Child Left Behind

George W. Bush wants to be remembered as the Education President. In his first term, President Bush reached across the aisle to work with Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is designed to bring about improvements in elementary and secondary education by introducing a level of  accountability into the funding process. Even though NCLB was an olive branch offered to congressional Democrats, President Bush has received tremendous criticism for the measure from the left.

The National Education Association (NEA) says that : The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (the latest revision of ESEA) presents real obstacles to helping students and strengthening public schools because it focuses on: punishments rather than assistance mandates rather than support for effective programs privatization rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions

Typically, I support anything, the NEA vehemently opposes but not in the case.

I am a Republican, I supported George W. Bush — but in this case, I am with the NEA.

I am with the NEA in opposition to No Child Left Behind, but for quite different reasons. The U.S. Department of Education website has an FAQ on NCLB. Items 1 and 8 of the FAQ summarize my objections to NCLB rather nicely.

1. The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states.   . . . 8. There are no federal education "mandates." Every federal education law is conditioned on a state's decision to accept federal program funds.

The FAQ is correct, education is not enumerated as a responsibility of the Federal Government. It is in fact a state responsibility. The idea of an Education President is a Constitutional oxymoron. Not because President Bush is doing anything wrong in regards to education, rather because the Federal Government has no business meddling in education in the first place.

There was a time when the conservative position was to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. On the stump against President Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan referred to the U.S. Department of education as President Carter's new bureaucratic boondoggle. Well, at least it is a bi-partisan boondoggle, because rather than eliminate or even shrink  the Department of Education, President Bush has grown it.

The FAQ number 8 is a typical Washington lie — worse, many people fall for it. NCLB may not be a mandate, but the Federal Government already has money taken from the states and the states must play along to get any of it back.

I guess it is half true, federal education funding is not part of a mandate, it is a protection racket.  What is a protection racket? Consider an example.

You own a small cafe. A gangster comes by and offers to protect you (for a price) from the recent rash of vandalism and robbery in the neighborhood. You know full well that the gangster is behind the crime wave. Even so, you pay up because  you have no choice.

The US Department of Education is like organized crime. They take your money through taxes and then require you to play along and comply with their rules before they will return it to you (minus the expense of running the bureaucracy.

As to the substance of NCLB. I like the idea of punishing schools for failure, and privatization where necessary.

I just don't like Uncle Sam doing what the Constitution says should be done in the statehouse.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

G. Washington

Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary Has a Home

Last week I posted an article on the Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary for sale on EBay. This is the 10 year old grilled cheese sandwich with an image of the Virgin Mary on it. The sandwich sold on EBay this week for $28,000.

I guess this is the beginning of the Christmas season. What better gift for the person who has everything? I thought perhaps a whole grilled cheese Nativity scene would make a cool gift.

So, who has $28,000 to pay for a relic such as this? Perhaps a one of the faithful who believes in the power of the image? A collector of oddities? An eccentric millionaire? Kraft Foods?

Wrong on all counts — the Grilled Cheese Virgin Mary was purchased by an online casino.

It seems that GoldenPalace.com a Canadian Internet Casino purchased the sandwich. I googled GoldenPalace.com and discovered that they are  one of the leading online gaming sites and that they have a flair for promotion.

Among the casino's stunts male and female streakers, with the casino's URL written on their bodies, at the Super Bowl, the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona and the PGA US Open.  This is the same organization that asked Dennis Rodman to run the Bulls (thankfully Dennis wore the traditional white clothing with red sash) wearing a casino hat.

The casino also purchased a one-of-a-kind Ellen Degeneres Cabbage Patch doll with the intention of sending it into space.

For sports fans, they purchased the infamous Beckham Ball. This is the ball from Beckham's missed shot in the European Cup overtime shoot-out versus Portugal. The casino has used the ball in a variety of charity fundraisers to raise money for a Polish Children's Hospital.

Richard Rowe, CEO of GoldenPalace.com, indicated that the casino would use the sandwich to raise money for charity. This is just one of those heartwarming Thanksgiving stories. A group of Canadian (no surprise there) philanthropists, buying the sandwich for the sole purpose of raising money to help the less fortunate.

Actually their motives may not have been quite so pure. ABC News reported that the sandwiches maker, Diana Duser of Florida, claimed miraculous powers for the sandwich. According to ABC, Duser claims to have won $70,000 from a local casino since making the sandwich — she even offered to show the receipts to the high bidder. Do you see the connection?

GoldenPalace.com was just scared that someone would buy the sandwich and use it to beat the house.

The Wisconsin Hunting Murders

This week, we all heard about the horrific murders in Wisconsin. It was opening day of deer season.  Wisconsin has a tradition of deer camps. Where large groups of hunters will spend several days together in a cabin during deer season. These deer camps are often multigenerational family affairs.

In this case two hunters from a deer camp came across someone in a tree stand on private land without permission. When they asked him to leave, he shot both of them. When one of the wounded radioed for help the rest of the party showed up and eight of them were shot. Six of the eight  have died. The dead include a father and his 20 year old son. The shooter also injured another man and killed his 27 year old daughter. According to a Deputy Sheriff, the party of hunters had only one rifle between them.

According to Robert Imrie of AP, the shooter used an assault rifle.

Once again the media has chosen to mis-characterize this tragedy and blame the gun. I would like to take a look at two issues in this tragedy: the gun and the man.

As for the gun, according to the same AP piece, the gun in question is a semiautomatic assault rifle. In the Madison Capital Times, Joshua Freed recounts the statement of Sheriff's Deputy Ziegele, writing:

Zeigle said the suspect was "chasing after them and killing them" with a SKS 7.62 caliber semiautomatic, a common hunting weapon.

Wait a minute — a common hunting weapon?  I thought the murders were committed with an assault rifle. Proponents of the recently lifted Assault Rifle Ban always said that there was no legitimate use for these weapons. The SKS is a common eastern (read Soviet) bloc military weapon. It is produced in multiple variation in several countries. Blogger Kim du Toit has detailed information on the SKS on his site. This is a picture of the SKS:

According to the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Assault Rifle Ban) the SKS (in most configurations is not an assault rifle. In order to be an assault rifle a weapon had to be semi-automatic, have a removable magazine and two of the following: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor (or threads for one) or a grenade launcher.

The SKS is a semi-automatic. It has a removable magazine. (According to an early AP article, since removed from their site, the killer had a 20 round removable magazine.) The SKS has an integral bayonet mount but that is the only item from the list above. Unless this was a folding stock version, it was not an assault rifle under the ban definition.

One of the common misconceptions is the definition of semi-automatic. A semi-automatic rifle (or pistol) might be better called self-cocking or autoloading. In these weapons, the recoil from firing is used to eject the spent shell and load the next. Therefore the shooter can simply pull the trigger multiple times and get multiple shots. These are not machine guns where holding down the trigger results in a burst of bullets. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are commonly used in hunting. Remington's classic 1100 shotgun and the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) are just two examples.

So the gun was just a gun. A military weapon commonly used as a hunting rifle — not an assault weapon under the ban.

What about the man? The shooter has been identified as Chai Vang, a Hmong immigrant to the US living in the Twin Cities area. While Vang has no criminal record, police had been called to his residence previously for domestic disturbances. On one occasion, according to the Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin: 

Minneapolis police said they arrested Chai Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife. No charge was filed because she didn't cooperate with authorities, spokesman Ron Reier said. St. Paul police said there had been two domestic violence calls to his home in the past year, but both were resolved without incident.

Apparently Chai Vang was a man prone to violence. He had committed a crime with a handgun—threatening his wife. This is man who by his behavior had forfeited his right to bear arms. With multiple domestic violence reports and use of a handgun in a crime, Vang should have been in prison, not on the street, much less in a tree stand with a weapon. Of course today, CNN Online reports that Vang claims he was fired upon first. 

Regardless who fired first, this was an unstable individual who had slipped through the cracks in the system.

 

Racism in America Today

Racism is alive and well in America today. It is inescapable and it is a fact. In the recent elections, black voters were told that Republicans were systematically trying to disenfranchise them. According to columnist Larry Elder, John Kerry claimed that 1,000,000 black voters were disenfranchised in the 2000 election.

The Bush Administration and Republicans are constantly criticized for being racist. Among Bush's sins, not accepting an invitation to speak at the NAACP meeting this year. Of course the NAACP is a liberal organization that supports Democratic candidates but Bush's refusal is deemed racist.

President Bush has made top level cabinet appointments of minorities like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rica, Rod Paige, Elaine Chao and  Norm Mineta. Of course Democrats say this is pandering or window-dressing.

It seems that when it comes to race — you can't win for losing.

Take for example Dr. Condoleeza Rice. President Bush has nominated Dr. Rice for to replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State. Dr. Rice served honorably as President Bush's National Security Adviser, yet a Madison, Wisconsin radio talk show host calls her an Aunt Jemima. 

Dr. Rice  is not controversial because she is a black woman. She is controversial because she is a black woman who is conservative and supports President Bush. She has betrayed her race and her sex in order to cozy up to 'da man.

In this racist country and thanks to affirmative action, whenever a black person achieves success in our society they are suspect. People wonder whether they are just tokens, or have they been given special consideration because of their race.

Even the recent controversy about Nicolette Sheridan and Terell Owens and their pre-game gaffe had racial overtones. Black Entertainment Television had a forum on the issue and the majority of comments were on the racist nature of the controversy. Isn't the very idea of Black Entertainment Television itself racist? Can you imagine a White Entertainment Television network?

The problem is that in this country, in our attempt to avoid being racist we do exactly the opposite — we recognize race and make it an issue everywhere.  Laws that take away the voting rights of incarcerated felons are currently being challenged in our courts. Not because anyone thinks felons should have the right to vote but because these laws are considered racist.  How are these laws racist? The Logic goes like this, blacks make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population, the law disenfanchises prisoners, therefore the law is designed to disenfranchise blacks, therefore it is in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

In his I Have a Dream speech, Dr. Martin Luther King said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

Whenever I fill out a form, rather than checking all the boxes that apply (Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African) I always decline. I have a daughter, who is working in the United States Congress as a Page. Now I don't know if it will be practical but, she has resolved that when she goes to college, she will not accept any money on the basis of her race or sex. I could not be any more proud of her.

It is my daughter who is living Dr. King's dream.

Les Misérables, Victor Hugo

Les Misébles is Victor Hugo's magnum opus. This epic novel looks at French society in the 1820s and 1830s. Hugo's novel is the story of Jean Valjean. Convicted for stealing bread to feed his sister's starving child, Valjean becomes a convict and is sentenced to the galleys. Between his sentence and extra time for escape attempts, Valjean spends nearly 20 years at hard labor.

The story follows Valjean's path to redemption after his parole. Along the way he meets the Bishop of D--- (digne les bains) who points him to God. Valjean struggles and eventually commits another crime that would make him a fugitive for life.

Valjean eventually escapes and takes on a pseudonym. He invents a new manufacturing process and becomes rich. All the while employing as many of the poor in the community as he can. Eventually he becomes the mayor of the town respected by all.

Hugo's novel illustrates the truism that no good deed goes unpunished.

Eventually the police capture a fugitive, an imbecile they believe is Valjean. Valjean, now the mayor must decide whether to lay low or speak out and take the prisoner's place. He chooses to tell the truth.

Along the way he vows to raise Cosette, the daughter of a prostitute whom he raises as his own. His flight from the policeman, Inspector Javert, takes him to Paris on the brink of the revolution preceeding the Second Republic.

For American readers, the context is confusing because the revolution depicted is not the revolution of 1789 that endid in the regicide and brought on the terror. This is rather the revolution of 1832. This revolution was against King Louis-Phillipe and the restored Bourbon monarchy.

In Les Misérables, we see all layers of French society at the time. The bohemien students, the rabble in the street, the dying aristocracy all portrayed in some of the darkest days of the City of Lights. Hugo's book  speaks to the human condition laid bare.

If you are interested, I would recommend that you also see the Broadway show version or even the High School version. I have seen the show several times on Broadway and on a couple of tours. I saw one of the first Hish School productions and it was just as moving as the Broadway version.

While this is a timeless story, it has not fared movie adaptation as well. The 1998 version featuring Liam Neeson, Geoffry Rush, Uma Thurman and Claire Danes is not worth  seeing. Last time I was in France I bought a multi-DVD version featuring Gerard Depardieu for my sister who teaches French. I hear it is better but it is in French.

Over the last few years I have been acquiring successively more advanced version of this book in French. I am currently reading at about a Junior High level. This is one of my favorite books.

This book is about the human condition — read it!

   
                     

Les Misérables gets 5 of 5 dis-oriented smileys

 

Purchase Les Misérables from Amazon.com.

NHL Lockout? I hadn't noticed

I saw a headline a few weeks ago week about the National Hockey League. The headline noted that the NHL lockout continued and the All-Start Game had been cancelled. NHL lockout? What lockout? I hadn't noticed. I looked at the NHL site and there was no information about a lockout or strike. Though there was an eerie lack of TV info on the schedule and all the stats were from the 2003-2004 season. I checked out some of the team sites, Detroit and Pittsburgh and nothing about the lockout.

I am not a huge sports fan but I listen to ESPN Sports Talk Radio. Occasionally I hear broadcaster talk about the four major professional sports. Hmmm... four major sports. That would be Major League Baseball, The National Football League, the National Basketball Association and NASCAR. Imagine my surprise when the broadcaster enumerated the Big Four: Baseball, Football, Basketball and Hockey. Hockey—this is not Canada, eh.

Since when has hockey been a major sport in the United States?

I discovered that Hockey has a few fans. My brother is a huge Wings fan. (Detroit RedWings). My brother-in-law is a Minnesota Wild fan. (Wild, whatever happened to the North Stars?) Finally my good friend and fellow blogger Scott is a big Penguins fan.

I think I need to check up on them because not all fans are taking it well. For example Wings fans,  Detroit is a hockey town. Red Wing fans are among the most die-hard in the league. Yesterday, a bunch of Wings fans were so hockey-deprived that they had to start a brawl at a Detroit Pistons basketball game.

Fans were throwing beer, ice and even a chair at players from the opposing Indian Pacers. Players charged into the stands punching fans as they went and fans went onto the floor to fight with players. I think the NHL needs to end the lockout while they still can.

If other pro sports (like basketball) add fighting, hockey will be redundant.

The Clinton Legacy

Yesterday in Little Rock Arkansas was the opening of the Clinton Presidential Library. Bill and Hillary Clinton were there along with both Presidents Bush and President Jimmy Carter.  All the living presidents except 91 year old President Gerald Ford.

The Clinton Library is an impressive modern building. It is located on the located in downtown Little Rock, on the Arkansas River. It is the figurative seventh bridge of Little Rock. The theme of the library is A Bridge to the Future. But as I look at the cantilever that extends partially across the river into space — I see only a bridge to nowhere.

Only time will tell whether the presidency of Bill Clinton is really a bridge to the future. What is absolutely certain is that Clinton presidency has a history.

The library has several alcoves devoted to thematic exhibits from President Clinton's life. The most controversial exhibit is the exhibit on scandals. The exhibit is called, The Fight for Power. The exhibit paints the  scandals and eventual impeachment as a partisan power fight. Ken Starr, Susan McDougal and even Monica Lewinsky are mentioned or pictured in the exhibit. An MSNBC article notes that the exhibit has sections called,  A New Culture of Confrontation and Politics of Persecution.

It just goes to show you — President Clinton still doesn't get it. What the exhibit does not say is that Bill Clinton was a man who ascended to the most powerful office in the nation. Along the way he became a serial adulterer. In the oval office, he took advantage of an intern. On television, he looked the American people in the eye and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Of course when Hillary learned that Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman, she was relieved. Whe dscribes the incident in her book, Living History.

'I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, "What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?" I was furious and getting more so by the second.

Somehow he still doesn't get it. President Clinton used his office to take advantage of an intern. A manager in any company in the same position would have been fired for sexual harrasment. But Bill Clinton, was a victim. He calls it the Politics of Persecution — perhaps it should have been called Presidential Contempt. Contempt for morality, contempt for marriage, contempt for the office, contempt for a subordianate, contempt for the American people and contempt for the truth.

What I really want to know is — where is Monica's little blue dress?