[CS-FSLUG] Subject: 21 Steps to Becoming a Liberal

[Aaron Patrick Lehmann]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:07:20AM -0400, David M. wrote:
> On Friday 13 August 2004 07:52 am, Jerry VanBrimmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 01:07:03AM -0500, Aaron Patrick Lehmann wrote:
> > > > What about Michael Jackson? Do you agree he is a public figure? IF he
> > > > is guilty (I am not saying he is, I'm just saying suppose he is), would
> > > > you say he should be let go free, because his child molestation was
> > > > done off the stage????
> > >
> > > Not the same situation as Clinton.  Clinton, as I understand it, did
> > > nothing illegal with Lewinski
> >
> > This I will agree to, I was simply trying to point out the difficulty of
> > separating a person's private life from his public life. Though Clinton's
> > act was not necessarily illegal, it was immoral. All of us have a private
> > and a public aspect to our lives. Sooner or later, what we do in private,
> > will affect our public life. Cannot be separated, period. For instance, you
> > do something illegal, privately. Get arrested, tried, found guilty,
> > sentenced to prison. You go behind bars, your public life just ended.
> 
> Sure your public life ended, but does 100% of the population of America know
> about it?
> 
> If I went to jail today, would anyone on this list know it?
> 
> The way I see it, no matter if your a celebrity, public figure, iron worker,
> bum, or whatever else, your personal life isn't the public's business unless
> you make it public business. But in the case of "high profile" celebrities,
> or someone like the president, the media make it "public business".
> 
> I am not saying that what these people do is morally or legally right, but is
> it anyones business other than the person(s) involved?
> 
> I don't think anyone on this list could say they have never did anything in
> their life that they are ashamed of. But is that person going to come forth
> and tell this list? I doubt it.
> 
> Would it make me less of a Christian if I confessed to trying Marajuana when
> I was 15?
> 
> Oh nobody heard about that? Ah but everyone heard about Dubya trying what was
> it? crack? or cocain? and Clincton from what I understand inhaled.
> 
> Oh lets impeach Dubya cuz he tried drugs even though it's none of our
> business whether he did or not.
This raises an interesting idea.  When I break the law in private, in a way
that seemingly harms no one, what right does the government have to prosecute
them?  An interesting thought experiment:  Under Roman law, there must be an
injured party to demand vengeance in order for a crime to be prosecuted.  Alice
was murdered.  She used to be a slave, belonging to Bob, before she was freed,
and married to Carl, who is dead.  When Alice became a slave, her family lost
legal claim on her, and when she was freed, Bob ceded it to Carl.  Since Carl
is dead, he can't demand vengeance.  With no plaintiff, the crime cannot be
tried, let alone punished.  Under our system of law, however, the state itself,
as representative of the people, is the plaintiff in the cases.  This would
seem to indicate that the proceedings and outcome of trials SHOULD be public
knowledge.  In fact, in the case of Michael Jackson, if he is convicted, he
will be obliged to personally tell his neighbors, in many US localities.

As far as President Clinton, I also object to the use the Republicans made of
his personal life, since it was only marginally related to the matter at hand.
It seems to me that it as a ploy to force him to perjure himself, which strikes
me as a really low blow.  I realize that there's no law against low blows,
but...

I guess what I'm getting at is that illegal actions are EVERYONE's business.
And that my sypathies were and are with the Clintons and Ms. Lewinski, on
grounds of fair play.

Oh, and if President Bush has been taking illegal drugs, he should be
impeached.

Aaron Lehmann

-- 
Sometimes you stay the course;
Sometimes the course stays you.