Fun_People Archive
24 Sep
Dilbert Responds to Zippergate

Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98 17:18:39 -0700
To: Fun_People
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Dilbert Responds to Zippergate

X-Lib-of-Cong-ISSN: 1098-7649
[Sorry, I guess I'm slipping...  I was so good for months; I hardly let
 anything about the Bill and Monica show get on Fun_People because I felt
 their private lives were none of our business and anyway, the jokes were
 so juvenile.  Well, now the pros are really getting into it -- it's still
 none of our business, but the humor is so much better... so ... well ...
 I already apologized, didn't I?

Forwarded-by: "Jack D. Doyle" <doylej@PEAK.ORG>
From: the Dilbert Newsletter .....

Induhviduals And Zippergate - by Scot Adams

Lately I have been subjected to many Induhvidual opinions about Zippergate.
Rather than respond to them as they happen, which would require me to yell
at my television set, thereby scaring all of my other appliances, I will
address these curious viewpoints here.

Note:  I have no strong opinion of what should happen to the President.
I'm just amused by it all.

	Induhvidual Opinion #1 -- It's about lies, not sex

Some Induhviduals say it's not the sex, it's the lying that's the real
problem.  But it's not a general kind of lying that's the problem, it's
specifically the President's unwillingness to share details of his sex life
with every human being in the world.  By that standard, only Geraldo Rivera
and Dennis Rodman could qualify to be President.

If lying is so damnable, let's say we decide to impeach every politician
who lies to the American people.  They'd be dropping like flies.  I forget
how the chain of command works, but I think that after the President and
the Vice President, you have the Speaker of The House, and then members of
the cabinet, and on from there.  It would take about two months before a
near-sighted postal clerk has the nuclear launch codes.

When the politicians who vote on impeachment tell us they will be
non-political, asking us to believe they will ignore the fact that Al Gore
could become president,  do you think they are telling the truth? And if
they aren't, shouldn't we impeach them too?

	Induhvidual Opinion #2 -- How Can Clinton Govern Now?

I have this image in my head of Yasser Arafat visiting the White House.
Clinton offers him a Presidential cigar and Arafat says, "If you don't mind,
could I have one that is still in the original wrapper?"  This ugly incident
turns into a towel fight and triggers World War Three.

That's the best scenario I could come up with in which the President's
ability to govern is affected by Zippergate.

I guess there's one other possibility.  Suppose Congress passes some
legislation and it comes to Clinton's desk for signature, but Hillary has
broken both of his arms.  That might slow him down.  But he could still grip
a pen in his teeth and sign the bill into law.  And if Hillary punched out
his teeth too, all you really needs is a bottle of dipping ink and a cute
intern to improvise a solution.  It wouldn't be the photo opportunity we're
used to, but at this point, nothing seems too shocking.

Let's say the President is less able to push his agenda in Congress now,
because no one wants to be his friend .  I keep asking myself how my life
will be different, compared to the dynamic leadership we expect from a
second term minority party president. So far, I'm stumped.

	Induhvidual Opinion #3 -- Any CEO would be fired

The pundits keep saying that any CEO who has an affair with an employee
would be fired.  But on my planet, Earth, CEOs routinely boff the staff,
literally and figuratively, and I know of no example where any CEO ever got
fired for anything except falling stock prices or accounting irregularities.
Who started the rumor that CEOs get fired for bedding their underlings?
Didn't Bill Gates marry one of his employees?

	Induhvidual Opinion #4 -- You Can't Do That In The Military

Pundits point out that the President would be kicked out of the military
for his behavior, if in fact he were in the military.  We can extend this
brilliant analysis to see how he would be treated by other organizations to
which he does not belong.

For example, I also believe he would be kicked out of the Girl Scouts for
his behavior.  That sort of activity is very disruptive to the meetings.
And I don't think you can participate in the Big Sister program with that
on your record either.  I also believe he would be fired as editor of Cigar
Aficionado magazine if he worked there, which he doesn't.

	Induhvidual Opinion #5 -- We can't help thinking about it

Some people say Clinton can't be effective because every time we look at
him we'll be grossed out thinking of his sex life.  Personally, I already
have that problem with most politicians, not to mention many of my friends,
and my entire extended family.  In fact, the only politician I can imagine
having sex, without wincing, is Al Gore, and that's only because I assume
he does it fully clothed.

	Induhvidual Opinion # 6 -- Not In The Oval Office!
Some people are incensed because the dirty deeds happened in the White
House.  This implies that some other location wouldn't have been so bad.
So I'm wondering, where **is** the best place for the President to do that
sort of thing?  Would a State Park be okay, or is that still government
land?  How about the French Embassy?  That's technically foreign soil, and
they probably have a cot in the back for just that kind of situation.

	Induhvidual Opinion #7 -- We Wasted 40 Million Dollars!
Sure, it was expensive, but I feel I got my money's worth.  I figure my
share was about eighty cents, and I've been entertained for months.  Compare
that to the seven bucks I paid to see the Godzilla movie and I think you'll
agree it's a bargain.

And consider the positive impact on the media.  It was a slow news year.
If the media had gone one more week without an interesting story, they would
have had to kill another member of the British royal family just to fill
airtime.  No one wants that.

	Induhvidual Opinion #8 -- It's Sexual Harassment
Some say that because Monica was a White House employee, and Clinton had
power to influence her career, it is sexual harassment by definition.

I suppose it's possible that Monica thought she would get a cabinet job
after her internship was over, or possibly become ambassador to Great
Britain.  And I suppose it's possible that Monica was afraid of being
demoted from her lucrative intern job.  So I guess that's the best point
I've heard so far.

prev [=] prev © 1998 Peter Langston []