Leave My John Alone
Mr. Julianelle, first let me say, I am not a member of any religion because religion and spirituality are two totally different things. The article you wrote about your attempted little Christian-soaked juvenile scheme on John Travolta was both ridiculous, self-destructive, and down right judgemental.
Who are you? You have no right to judge him on what he believes, no more than I have a right to judge you on what you believe. That whole little escapade was a waste of time an energy. You are such a bad writer that you have to create stories and scenarios and drama, involving celebrities to catch a reader's eye? Boy do you need to go back to journalism school, or did you ever?
My point, don't worry about what John Travolta believes in, your initial purpose was to get his autograph, you got, now be gone. Don't try to make it seem as thought you actually had some serious effect on "Johnny T," the moment you turned around and left was the moment he forgot about you. And tomorrow I won't remember your name either, I will only remember how stupid you had to have been at that moment to pull the rabbit you call a hit story out of your ass.
Good, Good, and Good
Excellent article, well paced, well written, not entirely an eye-opener but it makes me want to know how the author has done since he wrote this. Impressive.
Good graphic design on your site, by the way.
That is quite an outrageous article.
"If Manson, Why Not Hale?" is absolutely an absurd proposition. Manson was a druggie pervert who raped somebody in prison, who was really quite clearly uneducated, and who was involved in pimping and forgery. He lived a very criminal lifestyle and surely that makes him very much a Jesus figure. The WCOTC is anti-christianity, as we are anti-nihilists. PM Matt Hale is an educated person, with a Law degree as well as one in political science. He has never spent time in prison, not even county jail as far as I know. And in contrast, Manson's group was a band of druggie hippies or something. Despite the claim that they were racist they were hardly very much so.
Next time, write an article with some truth to it. This is obviously politicall motivated. Nobody I know really would do what Ben Smith did.
Passion Makes Me Want to Buy the Book
I love this essay. I have an odd infatuation with LA for some reason, and this superbly represents the feelings I get when I ponder walking down an LA street. Great work.
Right on, Bro
This was a well-written article. I can't vouch for the male perspective, but appreciated the glimpse into that realm. It gives more meaning to the old "What are you thinking?" question and the "Nothing" response when he writes "I sat there at the table thinking thoughts too complex for the language I had been taught. I thought in emotions not in words, in images not in thoughts"
Certainly could relate to his longing for security and independence in his relationship. The girl's clinging served only to push him farther away.
On the other hand I found myself thinking that if one "happens" into a relationship, one should have the balls to happen out of the relationship. But then, who do you know that always has the balls to do the thing that should be done? Thanks for the good read and a brief wander into the male perspective.
I just got finished reading "Your not Bored, You're Just a Child," and it was a story I was able to relate to very well. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times. It is nice to see that someone understands the male point of view in relationships. I just really enjoyed the read.
Music Game a Sham
Hurrah for Craig Platt and his article "The Great Music Hoax."
Take it one step further and we find 99 percent of the music game is an extension of soul-less commercial materialism. Let's skip the singles, skip the albums, and go back to live unpaid one-on-one. I've seen enough concerts -- all the greats of the 70s -- to damage my hearing. The best show I ever saw was some girl whose name I never learned, playing an acoustic guitar in a bar in New Orleans!
I totally appreciate your stance in the matter that Clinton is basically a sexist pig (and a lying coward to boot) and how he has hurt many people with his greedy selfishness. And I must agree at how pathetically sick it was how the media smothered us in the gory details, flipping their stances back and forth based solely on the needs of popularity and selling more copies of their publications.
What I most strongly agree with you on is the fact that our government has made a mockery of us by letting our president, the representative for the entire nation, get away with doing things that aren't even tolerated in the lowest ranks of the military. A government that almost unanimously cries out against such actions in political campaigns as "morally outrageous" and "detrimental to our way of life" would justify their decisions by claiming that his actions posed "no serious threat to our nation."
Your stances seemed a little too far-placed into the sexism themes of the issue though. There is, in my opinion, much more at stake here than the rights of women in the free world.
I'll start by saying this: Hillary and Monica are hardly victims. I don't know enough about Paula Cole (sic) to really say anything about her, except to say that when she tried to climb on the "Bill made me ..." band wagon with Monica, she got kicked right back off. I don't wish to focus on her right now, though, for she is to the side of my point.
Let's start with Hillary, the woman who you claimed is forced to play "the good wife" and must "support her husband." Think way back for a second to Clinton's original campaign when he was running against Bush. Some of the mud that other presidential hopefuls tried to sling at him was the fact that, just shy of his announcing his run for president, his wife Hillary Clinton was about to divorce him for adultery. But, suddenly, on his election tours, who stands beside him waving, laughing, and smiling in her best Miss America pose? Hillary "I'm-gonna-divorce-your-ass" Clinton.
She wanted to be the first lady. See, Hillary isn't forced to play the good wife -- she, from the very beginning has freely and openly chosen to. She made the decision to stay with her unfaithful, irresponsible husband, somebody she for years seemingly had no respect for whatsoever Why did she stay in what seems to be a living hell of a marriage?
She stayed with him because of what she felt she could get out of it. Just look at her recent campaign going on to be the governor of New York. She's simply another business-minded politician. With her own motives, intentions, and interests in mind, she stayed with him. So, is she a victim now? Hardly. He wasn't faithful then and he isn't faithful now. I'll put money down that as soon as he's out of office she drops his ass cold. The only reason at this point that I can see why she'd still hold on to their joke of a marriage is her running in New York.
On to Monica. She gave the president a knob job and then told everybody, and now she likes to hang out with actors and the like as if she's some sort of star. You couldn't buy a paper napkin with the amount of respect I have for her. I guess the only other thing I can say about this girl is the fact that she had the same motives as Clinton's own wife: herself.
"Who doesn't lie about sex?" Well, Melissa, I've got an answer for that one: honest people don't. Married people who respect each other and find fulfillment in one another, the way everybody should, don't lie. They don't have to. Clinton isn't honest, he isn't loyal, he isn't honorable, and he isn't faithful. His example is damaging much more than just the enforcement of sexual equality and harassment laws.
He -- and our government as well as the majority of the apathetic public -- has damaged the integrity of the entire country. Not only do women suffer, men suffer as well. Clinton has made it seem to the rest of the world that we are all lying, selfish cowards who can't take responsibility for our actions. Monica has damaged the American woman's reputation by doing the same: sucking off our married president and then milking it for all it's worth, smiling in her little spotlight. The actions of these two individuals have turned our country into a joke.
Now, a question that may come to mind would be, "Why have these two been allowed to get away with it, especially Clinton, who should claim heavy responsibility?" Well, two things come to mind.
First, politics. Did you notice that not one democrat voted for him to get booted. Surely, not every single one of them believed that what he did was OK and that he should get off with less than a slap on the wrist. Well, what's obvious to me is the fact that they were acting in the interests of the Democratic party. This really disturbs me, because these people, our chosen leaders, should have been acting in the interests of the people. Um, as far as I can remember, they didn't even bother asking us for our vote. Notice another disturbing fact: nearly all Republicans voted against him, but just enough voted for him to keep him in office. I wish I could say that those voting against him were doing so because they felt it to be the responsible thing to do, but I can't help but have the feeling that they were only acting in the best interests of their party. Again, our leaders didn't seem to give the slightest care to what the people wanted. So, why didn't they all vote against him? I'm sure some favors were handed out to win their vote. It was just enough to keep Clinton in -- giving little more to the country than a worthless, pathetic "I'm sorry" speech.
A much deeper problem than sexual equality has reared its ugly head here. We cannot trust our government. It acts totally on its own behalf. The government seems to no longer look on its people as those they represent and work for. It seems that they see us as nothing more than fuel for their machine. For some reason, everyone will claim to seem to know this, yet they feel led to do nothing about it. Nobody seems to want to face up to the fact this is a very horrible thing and leading to things even worse. Why does everyone just nonchalantly look away?
Money. Plain out and matter-of-fact, the economy is going well. As long as the money is good, then everything is hunky-dory. The president can get away with everything, even selling secrets to China, as long as we can go out, make our money, eat our Big Macs, and then go home to watch Friends. I hate to say it, but it's getting to the point where we're going to have to have an economic crash to wake the majority of the populace up from its apathetic stupor and realize the truth.
We've made a big mistake in letting Clinton get away with what he's done. It's time people started looking past their own noses and dollars at issues far more important. I think we all should start screaming a lot louder to get the attention of our politicians.
Thank you very much for the letter and actually reading my column. But I have a few points of contention with your response. First of all, I do understand that the Clinton/Lewinsky issue flows much deeper than simply gender politics. I choose to emphasize that aspect because, frankly, your point has been made many times while I feel mine has not.
Gender discrimination is a serious issue in our country, and I felt it was a shame that such a blatant act of sexism was going virtually unnoticed. And while I agree mostly with your points about the government becoming an entity out of control of the people, I disagree with your characterizations of Ms. Lewinsky and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton may have very well chosen to stay married for her own purposes, but why should she be judged more harshly than say the congresspersons who voted to keep Clinton in office? It is very true that she is using her position to the utmost. I would argue though that, being a woman, she would have nearly no other way to achieve her goals. By remaining the first lady, Mrs. Clinton has increased her chances of a victory in New York. Otherwise she would be the bitch ex-wife and ostracized for it. And why shouldnt she get the most out of her marriage? Mr. Clinton certainly has. Some would argue that he would never be in the position he is in now without her -- how, may I ask, is that different from what Mrs. Clinton is doing? Mind you, I am not condoning it, I am simply saying that you cant judge her on her solely on her gender -- just because she is a woman does not mean she has to do the right thing.
As for Monica, you make it sound like no other 21-year-old woman has ever performed oral sex for her own purposes. I am not condoning what she did, and I certainly cant defend her intelligence, but what is so wrong about thinking about yourself? I dont really want to go into this, but I feel Monica should be judged by the same standards as the rest involved were. Monica became the dirty, little whore while Clinton was practically congratulated. If thats not sexism then I dont know what is. -- Melissa