Ben, thanks for writing me once again. I enjoy this correspondence.

I must tell you that I am a fairly simple-minded man, and I don't know enough about Clinton's actual foreign policy to judge it with certainty. I read the papers, but nothing comes in very clear to me. If Americans were actually getting killed in those regions where we seem to have stocked specimens of armed and uniformed young American manhood, then I would more strongly join in your alarm over what is happening internationally on account of U.S. intervention in for instance Europe and the Middle East.

The truth is that I am more alarmed by U.S. intervention in Central and South America at this time, where the twins of those Eastern Hemisphere stationed young men are in the (I fear daily and repeated) process of dropping napalm or defoliants on fields overgrown with the coca plant, and incidentally on occasion conducting massacres of the peasants who are hired at very low wages to farm those fields for their cocaine producing employers or wholesale purchasers.

Clinton is obviously bad on this front too, in that: He does nothing to remedy that war on Latin American peasants, despite his arriving from the drug-using anti-war generation, and despite his expressed concerns for the downtrodden and the poor... his litany is that of the Democratic Party, of course, and is bankrupt.

But Newt Gingrich, for instance, would be considerably worse. I believe the Newt favors very severe punishments for drug-law violators. In contrast, Willie-Jeff merely salted his own drug-using brother in prison in order to "rehabilitate" his erring blood kin, and incidentally maintaining his own rep from what he perceived to be a family taint, a perception which is now indubitably applied as well to Willie-Jeff himself.

Ah, I *am* long-winded. Sorry.

The point I am sort of meandering towards is this one:

Commie-globalists are a sufficient unknown to me as a -- shall-we-say? -- ideological species that I am perhaps foolishly not so worried about them as I am about the sorts of legislators who recommend AMPUTATION OF LIMBS as a way of dealing properly with drug-law offenders.

There ARE such legislators. And they are at least as apt to be Republicans as they are to be Democrats. Bill Clinton, for all of his lackadaisical and irresponsible shrugging off of the "full responsibility" he swiftly "takes" for such unnatural disasters as the Waco matter, is not an true sadist, as those vicious hypocrites to whom I have just referred are: The Amputators, I guess we ought to call them.

Many of them bill themselves also as "Pro-Life". Oh well. Paradoxes never end. I leave you to measure the validity of label many of The Amputators also apply to themselves.

Clinton needs to end the War on Drugs. He needs to call the troops home. He needs to apologize to the nation for his lying, his sexual and pharmacological hypocrisy, and his total blandness in the face of injustice. He himself does not strike me as much of a canny initiator of evil. He seems (or seemed) in fact well-intentioned.

That is a gut reaction of mine, and it could be wrong.

I've been wrong before.

I've also been right.