Has anyone noticed the grotesque trend of social double-standards, ironies within ironies, getting more and more complex with each new year? How about drugging and drinking Presidential candidates trying to appeal to the electorate on the basis of their drugging and drinking? Here's the Clinton/Gore/Bush example. Clinton, a man who (according to classmate Christopher Hitchens) pounded down hashish brownies at Oxford, then claimed he "didn't inhale" -signed away important privacy protections to the drug war, -then used the "I did not inhale" routine to ingratiate himself with the section of the electorate who, at the base, identified with pot smoking as sign of honesty and a good heart, -even as their taxes funded the drug war. Then the 2000 election where -Gore (who admitted pot smoking for the same reasons) ran against -Bush (who made political capital from his "wild youth" AND the Texas ranch he bought as an election prop). All the while: Hundreds of thousands of people in jail for drug offenses as both Presidential candidates admit to some form of drug use. C'mon, guys, how many double standards is that? Seven? Eight layers of double standards? No one sees anything weirdly wrong with that picture? Eric PS: Been pursuing this thread on another list, and thought I'd drop part of the topic here in case anyone is interested. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html