The understanding of cause and effect is the basis of knowledge of reality. This is what separates the civilized man from the savage. A breakdown in understanding cause and effect destroys effective thought and rationality itself. Rationality is a thought progression from one material stage to another. Without valid cause and effect, reasoning cannot take place.

Bill Clinton's constant escapades, whether sexual, Whitewater, or Chinagate, serve one obvious purpose: They keep the Hallelujah chorus of his defenders on full alert. So, the more they are defending him, the more they will defend him--unless they want to admit that they made a mistake in the first place. Fortunately for Clinton, hubris  prevents that from occurring too frequently.

There is one other, more hidden purpose, as well. Clinton wants to destroy the very basis of cause and effect. Yes, he did bad things, but that's no reason to punish him. Yes, what he did is indefensible, so we'll defend him.

He has never admitted that he did anything "wrong," only that his behavior was "inappropriate." He has never apologized, but has stated that he has done so, many times. At the same time, his lawyers deny that he ever did anything wrong, but also maintain that he has apologized (for what??) publicly--even though he never has apologized.

Note that I am using "apologize" in the classic sense: You admit that you did wrong; you must regret that you did wrong; and you must state that it is YOUR FAULT.

Thus, his defenders admit that he was wrong, and therefore should not be punished, and should be defended because his behavior, which he did not do, was inexcusable, and indefensible. If this is starting to sound a lot like "Who's on First?," you're right. In Clinton's case, though, this is hardly a laughing matter.

Since language and communication are being dismantled on a daily basis, at some point, the non-defenders will develop severe mental fatigue, and just give up. Make no mistake--fatiguing your opponents is a powerful weapon. The Bolsheviks might not have succeeded if the Russian people were not so worn out and demoralized from fighting a lengthy and pointless World War I. They just wanted to come home and rest. When they stopped resting, they discovered that they were all Communist slaves.

Note how Clinton and his handlers shift between concepts of history, tradition, and law. At first, his offenses, which did not take place, are not crimes, and therefore should not be punished. Next, the punishment of crimes is not worth overturning the "will of the people," invoked as the traditional source of government power. Finally, we are told to dread the verdict of "history." Nobody ever explains what this means, or even why we should base our actions on what someone may think 100 years from now.

Since the opposition (mostly Republicans) don't seem to stand for anything except that they are against Clinton, they offer no alternatives. Even if they were to win all the battles, they would still lose the war, because they don't even have a plan of victory! If that sounds like how we fought and lost in Vietnam, you're right again.

The issue is much larger than Clinton getting away with crimes. What's at stake here is the very concept of reality. Are words to convey meaning or not? Or, as a certain Roman governor once said, mockingly, "What is truth?" (John 18:38)

In our new world (courtesy of Clinton), WE can decide what is good or evil, binding oaths don't matter, there are no moral restrictions, and reality is whatever we say it is.

What a great program! No wonder why his poll numbers are so high.