Common Sense	Common Sense Archive

It's funny what lingers. It's strange what sticks. Right now I'm thinking of Bill Clinton. In the moment of this memory, I think he is running for President of the United States the first time, 1992, and, for some reason he has landed on an MTV show, wherein the MTV young people get to ask him questions as though it were a grown-up adult forum. There stood Bill-- a man we quickly learned was in the business of trying to make every and all happy, always a mistake, particularly for a politician. One young woman, a teen, got put on the screens, and in front of the microphone, and she said, in words something like these: "Let's get to the important matters. Which is it: boxers or briefs?" She had that fucking look on her face of that stupid media-empowered Amerikan dumb arrogance. Bill Clinton gave her an answer. His answer caused a ruckus in the media the next day; to be honest, I cannot recall what his answer was. It didn't matter to me. I didn't care. What I did remember was that this young woman had asked such a question to the next President of the United States.

View our poll archive

Ten years later, this inquiry still raises questions for me, keeps me up at night. This issue goes to the core of our culture. First up: should any teen have the "right to free speech" to ask a Presidential candidate about the style of his undergarments? Was the female inquirer so stupid that she made the assumption that Bill Clinton wore underwear? Now I do realize that since the early 1980s, when Calvin Klein plastered his first undie campaign all over Times Square-- huge posters of that beautiful Greek guy, rumored by New York queans to be Calvin's boyfriend, and that is how they talk in the New York rag and advertising factories, or so I am told-- and underwear is terribly important to the yoot, as Boyd McDonald, among others, referred to them, of America, and especially after underwear started appearing as semi-outerwear, clearly some sort of cultural obsession, it's too stupid and boring to go on about. But it is a billion dollar industry, and sold to the yoot.

So Bill answered his question about his drawers. Stupid man. It does raise the question of inappropriateness. What questions, what dialogue should not be allowed? In Amerika, we have the race to the bottom, the dumbest, rudest, stupidest get on the screens, the screens make the money, and the people on the screens then give awards to themselves. My friend Michael was on WGBH, one of the premiere public radio stations in the USA-- the people who beg for money from the good folks who listen to them-- on a call-in chat show. The topic was the vote in Miami-Dade County, brought by the right-wing religious element to, once again, remove same-sexers from the civil right protections of the local authorities. Michael volunteered to be on the show; he didn't want to be matched up with some crazy X-ian loony type. He was assured this would not be the case. When he showed up for the airing, there he was, up against some completely insane X-ian loony tunes type. What it came down to was the Loony saying the right wing line: gay men are diseased, a public threat and should be done away with. I spoke with Michael afterwards. He was a little miffed. He reminded me that the Holocaust Museum in DC has an extensive outreach program. But I been informed that they also have a policy which says that they will not "debate" or appear on programs with folks who deny the Holocaust. That makes sense. Why appear in a cross-fire situation with someone who thinks you should be murdered and your whole class gotten rid of?

Are there some questions which should never be asked? For some in the public area, yes. Perhaps the underpants question for Bill. In France, I understand it is illegal to make public statements which are viciously anti-Semitic. A friend of mine thought this prohibition was excessive. I reminded him of the history of France in the 1920s and 1930s (and earlier-- not a pretty picture). My friend thought it was a Freedom of Speech Issue. I pointed out that so-called Freedom of Speech in Amerika has given us a near monopoly of frothing right-wingers, slobbering their clap-trap on all the venues, cable TV, printed outlets, not that anyone much reads such things anymore, the race to the bottom of the media pile-- even the PBS stations bringing in the completely deranged Jesus freaks. Triple sick.

There are also the matters of fairness and dignity, which, since the RayGun regime, have been on the wane. On the ascent has been typical Amerikan brash vulgarity, the standards for which are set by the very frothing loudmouths put on the screens. Real discussion about politics, culture and society are twisted to fit into the predominant entertainment morass. The charms of silence get lost in the stampede, any space for the subtle or nuanced observation wiped out-- or exiled to the small magazines. You needn't be an advocate of a "shame" culture to wonder what went wrong. The charms of Quaker "silent witness" are all the more alluring vis-ą-vis the institutionalized pandemonium. It's more than enough to drive you crazy or to write your own version of "Howl," which, in my own way, I hope I just did!

Author Profile:  Mitzel
	Mitzel was a founding member of the Fag Rag collective, and has been a Guide columnist since 1986. He manages Calamus Books near Boston's South Station.
	Email:	mitzel@calamusbooks.com
	Website:	calamusbooks.com