Here I am Lord, listening to music in the background, a bunch of "raunch-a-billy" mp3s I downloaded from a server called The Roost... don't really like em, but it's noise and drowns out my always present headache.

Some questions come to mind, mostly inspired by the screaming headlines on the paper in front of me, and the muted TV to my left: Will Bill Clinton be impeached? Is this the biggest invasion of privacy that the world has ever seen? Is Kenneth Starr a glass-eyed representative of Satan? Is Hillary really pissed even after she (sickingly, I might add) says that she is "proud of her husband"? And what the hell is sweet Chelsea and her preppy boyfriend thinking of all this? Or the dead soul of the White House dog, forever roaming the hallways looking for its presidential bone? Or Roosevelt, who seems to have started the trend of making the White House sexually immoral?

But, really, who the hell cares?

Sure, there ARE some people who care... most likely because they're advocates who are getting paid big bucks to be a part of this phenomenon or people who have help orchestrated the big thing. Scratch that... pathetic cries of "Wag The Dog" won't be appreciated in this pages. Perhaps there is someone who honestly cares about the whole thing.

And I think, although a big and cautious "think", that I am one of them. Fascination with other people's lives is paramount to me... I'm one of those "editorial" type people who write about everyone but themselves... afraid to reveal any sort of inner truth, but rather just spout about stuff around them. It's easier that way.

Besides the fact that I could barely hear the TV at the time, I recently learned that Bill Clinton listens to Sarah McLaughlin, and so does Lewinsky. Hell, when she hears that fifth track (fifth track? no one ever refers to titles anymore...), she always thinks of little Billy.

How trite... I just learned about Clinton and Lewinsky's musical taste in the five minutes where I could have been learning something useful (like what kind of music Hitler listened to). Such a small detail, but infinitely interesting to someone like me... a detail that will stay in my little pot of esoteric trivia.

Besides the loose connection between Clinton's musical tastes and my apparent lack there of (re: this "raunch-a-billy" stuff), there comes a time to talk about privacy. Sure, people like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have harped about it up and down, just as the self-proclaimed Mentor-wannabe hackers have said that "information wants to be free".

Yet as much as people will fight to the death when it deals with their own, they are more than willing to throw privacy out the window when it comes to anyone elses. No one holds the slightest regard toward a lock on a diary, a notebook left on the table, or an open door. A furtive glance becomes a wiping of the table, to an "oops, knocked it off" to a "while when I was picking it up, I saw...". It's all fun and games until you poke your eyes out, or at least read that your sister runs around in your clothes and masturbates in 'em.

And now Clinton's testimony has been released to the public for all the world to see. The Internet thinks it was stressed when Kenneth Starr's report was published, just wait until we see all the idiots scramble to livefeed RealVideo to all the people at work. Is it an invasion of privacy? Theoretically, yes... grand jury testimonies are typical meant to be private... that is their whole purpose.

It seems, though, that everything is thrown out the window because he's the capital "P" president.

Yet, the wonderfulness of our capital "R" rights seem to be diminished... sure, he's the president, and this is for THE country, but he is still of sound mind and body, whether he fucked around or not. I hesitate to think if Bill Gates ever found himself a girl (and yes, I know that was your stereotypical "Microsoft is Evil" comment, but so what... it illustrates the point). The loss of his rights to privacy and dignity, even for the good of the country, cannot be sacrificed just because they fondled each other in the presidential bathroom.

I was walking home the other night and I saw a car which had a large hand written sign in the back window reading "Honk if you trust the lying bastard!" and "Honk twice if you think he should be impeached!"

I don't know about you, but people don't lose their jobs because they had sex. Why should this have any impact on his own merit as a president? Sure, he lied to us and we can run up and down the streets calling it a betrayal to the American public... but he was trying to cover something up that we, truly, had no god damn right to give a shit about. It's perfectly fine when we lie to cover up something we've done... no one broadcasts that to a pathetic nation who hopes to find a life sadder than their own.

One has to admit that, if you are interested in the makeup of a person, the whole Clinton bullshit is rather interesting to watch. The wagging finger could have been an inspiration for the title of that famed movie, but more than likely it's going to become a synonym for "lying, but want you know that I'm lying".

Kinda like that shifty eye movement I pull all the time.

I listened to an interesting debate on the radio the other day. Those taking part were an animal rights activist and normal people. The latter included a scientist who used animals in his work. Now, regarding the latter, I have no interest in entering into any argument regarding the use of animals for either research or even food. There is no reasonable argument.

However, there was one aspect of the debate which did interest me. It was the philosophical view about the rights of animals. That is, do animals have rights?

Somebody from the audience argued quite eloquently in favour of that motion. They said that we confer rights upon babies, upon the mentally inadequate because they are helpless. Therefore we are morally obliged to confer rights upon animals, as they too are relatively helpless. And there the point of view that animals have no rights flounders.

Unfortunately, the counter argument was rather weak. Namely, that we confer rights upon infants and the weak because they are members of our own species. However, though inadequate, it is still valid.

There is, however, a far better reason for denying animals rights. Though, firstly we must look at exactly what we mean by rights. Now, it seems to me that there is much confusion over the semantics. People can argue, fruitlessly, forever about this. Simply because they are arguing about different things.

For example, are rights conferred or do they pre-exist? The answer to that is, both. There are two types of law. That which we call social or civic law, and that which we call natural law. Certainly, regarding the former, we can confer rights upon anything, from standing stones to trees, from rivers to buildings. Moreover, under our current system, animals already have some rights. So we can define one sort of right as something given to somebody or something under the rule of law.

Yet, there is another type of law. That which is natural. The law of nature. In the natural world, no animal of any description has any rights of any kind. There, power prevails. If we examine those societies which are closer to nature than ourselves, what some might call, primitive cultures, we can see natural rights in action. For, in those societies, there is no right without duty.

For example, in most primitive societies, babies have no rights. They can be killed just for being the wrong sex. The disabled are never given the opportunity to grow up. However, when an individual reaches a certain age then he inherits duties, and by default, rights. Often, this move is seen as the most important event in the persons' life, and is accompanied by much ritual. A warrior has duties and also rights. A child has no duties, no rights and is a mere chattel. He survives because his parents have certain relevant duties that have their genesis in genetics.

This divide between natural rights and civil rights can be easily seen in the argument over fox-hunting. It may be a cliche: that those who live in a rural environment are closer to nature than your average city dweller, but it is also a fact. Obviously, therefore, the two sides will see things differently. The city dweller hardly ever experiences natural law. On the other hand, those who live in the countryside experience it daily.

From the perspective of rural man, foxes have no rights whatsoever. They are a pest, a killer and can be hunted and killed in any way that man thinks fit. Indeed, neither do foxhounds or horses have any rights.

In conclusion, whether or not animals should have rights is a personal thing. Is the 'law of the land' more relevant than 'the law of the jungle'? That again, is a personal thing. 'Animal rights' have no basis in nature; it has no strong philosophical backing; it has no rational support. All that it has is emotive. That is no good reason to force such ideals upon others.

98-Sep-27
Steve4774@aol.com

For once I agree with you totally. It does suck that we had to go in a ruin the private life of Mr. Clinton. The only problem is that he did lie, and as bad as it is that he is for sure NOT the only president to have lied, he did get caught. For that he should be impeached. Not because what he did is so bad (Although in reality it really is bad!), but because he got caught. Can't have a president getting caught with his pants down now can we? If he was a smarter guy, he wouldn't have hever gotten caught. Now he just needs to suck it up like a man and resign. Then he can be as dirty as he wants to be!

Well, the only reason that he should resign would be the fact of lying, and not because he got caught, or because he had sex. The only major reason that I think is remotely happy is that "he lied once, he has probably lied to the American public about American activities too".

Is Kenneth Starr a glass-eyed representative of Satan?

Well, consider the following:

"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming social value under the public's 'right to know.' Pornography is pornography, regardless of the source."

-Kenneth Starr, 1987, interview with Dianne Sawyer - 60 minutes

Bravo, Morbus!! I couldn't have said it better. I especially liked your very good point, " Everyone thinks we can pry into people's private lives, until it's their own life" Excellent. Keep it up

next issue >>
<< last issue

plain text format


Devil Shat is published by Disobey & is protected under all copyright laws.
Devil Shat Thirty Six was released on 09/24/98. Last updated: 09/24/98.