Sept. 15 marked a potentially important moment for the Oberlin College community. The celebration of "El Grito" showed great efforts by the initiators of the event to not only celebrate Mexico's Independence Day, but to also welcome all who were inclined to join in the celebration. Sandor Winkler, the organizer of the event emphasized the importance of the celebration when he said, "I am glad you are all here to celebrate with us."

What is so enigmatic about this statement? A main focus of President Nancy Dye's speech to the General Faculty voiced concern over the divisive cliques which permeate the campus. Oberlin students consider themselves individuals, but as we seek acceptance, we often fall prey to the trappings of conformity. Walking around campus, we earmark the people who most look like us, or act like us, or share in the same cultural practices that we adhere to. Common practice is to shun those who don't appear to relate to our defined sense of community.

Cigars, berets and starrreport.com

Internet traffic was moving at Amish buggy speed when the Starr Report was released on-line a few days ago. Given the opportunity to know more than we ever wanted to about the President's sexcapades in the Oval Office, we clicked to the website to scroll through the legal bits and savor the succulency of Starr's more graphic accusations. We know more about the alleged proclivities of our Commander- in- Chief than we do about our roommate's bedroom practices.

What does this say about the time we're in or the people we are now? Countless reporters knew about or suspected JFK's penchant for blondes, and Marilyn Monroe sang a very bawdy version of "Happy Birthday" to the man without raising too many public eyebrows. However, the common people of this country were not informed of his many adulterous acts. Other presidents' medical conditions were hidden from us, the public, by news reporters from a different, less-concerned-with-sensationalism, more-concerned-with-the-health-of-America-and-American-politics-on-a-global-scale attitude toward reporting. We know Clinton was a brief man, thanks to MTV, while our parents didn't even see married couples on TV sleep in the same bedroom, let alone read tabloid reports about a public official's private life.

Does this mean, as the folks from Westboro Baptist Church would likely assert, that the moral fabric of America has been shredded? Or did these kinds of sexual adventures take place in the White House under different administrations, behind doors that were closed, locked and soundproofed, and with a media was less invasive? Is it so much what happened or is it that we know about what happened?

How does this dispersal of personal details affect our standing with other nations? If Yeltsin surfs the 'Net, is he chuckling at the stupidity of the American people for having our heads stuck so far up Monica's skirt (or, more accurately, down Bill's pants) that we would spend a medium-sized fortune to investigate their affair and then run the story on every TV station and in every newspaper? Or is he amazed at his colleague's moral blunders? Either way, other nations are very aware of our leader's fallibility as a man and our preoccupation with where his penis has been.

Some say that the issue at hand is Bill's perjury. He lied to us: "I did not have an improper relationship with that woman." However, it can be argued that in a slightly less media-hungry, information- junkie time, Clinton's bedroom politics wouldn't have mattered. If the man can run the country efficiently enough, who cares if he's getting oral pleasure while on the phone with Senators? (Other than, of course, the Senators he was having those conversations with, who probably feel like his attention was quite divided at the time.) Or maybe that's the issue: he was too concerned with affairs with interns and not enough with international affairs. Maybe we're afraid that the Oval Office became the Oral Office under his command. But, even his critics must admit that this country is doing relatively well- whether that is a "sign of the times" we're in or a direct result of the man from Arkansas is debatable.

So, what's the point? We know more than ever about our President and everyone else in the public sector. Do their personal choices impact how they treat us and how our country is lead? Do we really need have access to the Starr manifesto? Why weren't we treated to similar world wide web adventures when Gingrich was under investigation? This whole affair is much more than can even be touched upon in a mere editorial. We need to examine the significance of the Starr report and question whether we should have access to the private lives of public figures.