Interesting hypothesis, that some of us are unable to be completely
honest even when it is in our own best interest. I wonder if this is
some kind of strange, undocumented disease?
Another interesting hypothesis: for some values of "we", we create our
own destinies by our very nature...
> Our view is that history will depict him as the architect of his
> situation in a way that illustrates how a President's inner reality
> shapes his destiny.
One's inner reality shapes one's destiny, whether that inner reality is
the actual "truth" or not. I like that concept.
Full (short) editorial below...
> The War Inside Bill Clinton
> August 5, 1998 New York Times Editorial
>
> Elected officials and their professional handlers are forever condemning
> reporters and historians for focusing on politicians' character and
> personality. But over time, the study of the shaping influence of
> personal history has proved a reliable way to judge fitness for office
> and make reasonable predictions about performance under pressure. Thus
> the real suspense in Washington these days is not over what, if any,
> indiscretions President Clinton might confess, but in whether he can
> gather himself to meet his crisis.
>
> This mode of analysis will not appeal, of course, to those who see Mr.
> Clinton as a victim.
>
> Our view is that history will depict him as the architect of his
> situation in a way that illustrates how a President's inner reality
> shapes his destiny.
>
> Admittedly, there is always a limit to what we can learn from observing
> occupants of the Oval Office. But who can doubt that there was something
> in Ronald Reagan's rootedness that let him compensate for not being the
> brightest bulb in town? Similarly, it was the dark ceremonies of Richard
> Nixon's psyche, not some colossal international blunder, that destroyed
> a true foreign-policy intellectual. Lyndon Johnson's idealized
> personality was that of a social healer. But that part of his nature
> shaped by the macho code of the frontier destroyed his legacy and
> millions of lives.
>
> With Mr. Clinton, the drama seems of a less momentous order. But that
> does not mean that the struggle within him now is not a passionate one.
> Even his most dogged Congressional defenders and most loyal former aides
> are urging him to tell the truth, whatever it is. Yet Mr. Clinton's
> entire public record -- on the draft, marijuana, Whitewater, Filegate,
> Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky -- is one of avoiding full and factual
> disclosure even when that was the smart play. This is, in sum, behavior
> crafted as much by the nexus of inclination and experience as by advice
> of counsel.
>
> In its latest trash-the-critics operation, the White House has said that
> the mere act of calling on the President to tell the truth means that
> Mr. Clinton has been unfairly prejudged. It means something quite
> different, of course. Commentators and millions of skeptical citizens
> are basing their advice on six years of observation and a longing for
> candor. This is a President who has been delivered into crisis by the
> agency of his own evasions.
>
> Today he travels to the Capitol to meet with the House Democrats who
> must defend him against any impeachment efforts. They lack the numbers
> and, in some cases, the stomach for the task. They will advise honesty
> in the interests of their party's fate, Mr. Clinton's survival and
> repairing the Presidency. Whether Mr. Clinton agrees with that advice is
> a suspenseful question. Whether he could ever act on it is an even
> deeper and more mysterious one.
----
adam@cs.caltech.edu
Miller's squad consists of your typical supporting character types (Vin
Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Barry Pepper, Adam Goldberg, Jeremy Davies, Tom
Sizemore and Edward Burns), which means that if you list them in order
from least well known to most well known, you've also just listed the
order in which they are knocked off in the story.
-- Mr. Cranky reviews "Saving Private Ryan"