Fall -- looking back and rating the summer movies
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>old? They had to dig that far back to get dirt on Clinton?
>
As opposed to polite politics? Seems to me I recall Lawrence Walsh handing
down a totally spurious indictment of Casper Weinberger just in time for an
election. Reagan's staff didn't kvetch and go boo-hoo and fling self-pity
around -- they dealt with it, like professional pols who know this sort of
thing is going to happen. Politics... you can't live with it, you can't put
it on a stagecoach out of town. If Starr gets your goat, you can aim the
blame gun at 1) Janet Reno, who appointed him and specified his mandate,
2) the Democrat Congress that crafted the IC statute, 3) the campaign of
disinformation and obstruction engineered by the White House, 4) Clinton,
for providing such fertile ground for suspicion, and 5) Starr's bad hair
and unfortunate buck teeth. Not very telegenic
>Because Jones claimed she wanted to get back her "good name." She
>complained (at first) that some newspaper had incorrectly named her as a
>Clinton bimbo. So why not sue the paper? Secondly, Jones could have sued
>Clinton long before he was our president. Why did she wait? If it caused
>her such mental anguish all these years, why wait?
>
Perhaps for the same reason Ms Hill waited for ten years to complain about
Judge Thomas.
>Third, I don't see a
>guy flashing his pecker at you as sexual harassment. If we're going to
>be taken seriously on that issue we better as hell stop whining about the
>small things and talk about what really constitutes sexual harassment:
>when your job is threatened if you do not perform sexually, when it
>becomes unbearable to work somewhere because of an employers *continual*
>sexual advances.
>
Listen to yourself, Sasha. You're admitting that the President of the United
States is a flasher, and excusing him on grounds that that isn't *real*
sexual harassment. Being flashed by the governor of your state is a 'small
thing' and the lowly flashee is 'whining.' How far will you bend over back-
wards to excuse this man's behavior? And why? It's beginning to seem as if
half the citizenry has fallen victim to some bizarre variation of the
Stockholm Syndrome.
>Anita Hill had every right, in my opinion, to out Clarence Thomas when he
>was being elected to the highest court in the land. He'll be making
>serious decisions that effect us for decades to come. Clinton is our
>president. There are checks and balances where he is concerned. Hill was
>a conservative and she had nothing to gain.
>
You imply that presidents don't make 'serious decisions that affect us for
decades to come.' In a sense that's true -- their decisions affect the entire
world, not just us. There aren't quite as many checks and balances in foreign
policy. Do you really think presidents deserve less scrutiny than justices?
Should that maxim have applied to Nixon too, on grounds that he was 'our
president?' And how exactly did Hill 'out' Thomas?
Let's remind ourselves of exactly what Hill's accusation was -- that Thomas
made a couple of crude remarks in a high-pressure law office. Unheard of.
No touchy-feely, no come-on, just a couple of remarks. No one on that
committee thought it was worth pursuing until Nina Totenberg forced their hand.
After all the flummery, they approved the nomination just as they would have
without the charade. And if Hill is a conservative, I'm Queen Marie of
Romania.
>I would have to say, no, she's Lewinsky's John Dean if anything and that's
>not saying much. It doesn't bother you that Tripp was planning to write a
>tell-all book about Clinton long before this all came to light? Or that
>she misled and entrapped Lewinsky into these recorded phone calls and that
>they were done illegally?
>
All very venal and scurrilous, I agree. What does it have to do with what
Clinton did, and what Clinton is? The messenger may be a creep, but she's
still only the messenger.
>Well, I think what Nixon did was slightly more serious than this. Nixon
>really did abuse the office.
>
Nixon's misdeeds were serious and misguided but never as pathetic and juvenile.
Clinton's satyriasis, narcissism, and invincible dishonesty have led to
different sorts of misdeed, perhaps less profound but equally unsuitable.
>I agree with you. He seems totally insincere. But I never really
>believed he was sincere. I'm upset about the bigger picture. It's not
>worth sacrificing this president over this or any other stupid bimbo
>eruption.
>
So, he's insincere, he's a flasher, but despite his recklessness and miserable
judgment you don't want to sacrifice him because...
>I need a man in office who's going to look out for the issues I
>care about.
>
Oh. Is that what he's been doing? Clinton's most lasting legacy, other than
scandal and embarrassment, is a solid GOP majority in Congress, soon to be
even more solid. So much for looking after your issues.
>It's kind of a shame but I consider Bush and Reagan far
>worse. Pat Buchanan, Newt, all of them are losers.
>
Neither the worst faux pas by Reagan or Bush or even First Comedian Dan Quayle,
nor the gnarliest bit of rhetoric by Pat or Newt ever made us the global
laughingstock we've become under Clinton.
>I hardly think Lewinsky begging Clinton to come in her mouth is
>exploitation on his part. When he tried to end things she showed up
>wherever he was speaking and got there early so she could stand in front.
>Believe me, I've been a 21 year old bimbo. I know how exciting and
>thrilling this must have been for her.Hell, she's infamous now.
>
As I understand current theory, sex between a powerful boss and a barely adult
underling not only cannot be consensual, but is de facto exploitative. Or do
I misunderstand?
>I don't doubt it happened. I doubt it qualifies as sexual harassment.
>And I don't think anyone should be sued for such a thing. Christ, I'd be
>a millionaire if I started suing every Tom Dick and Harry for making a
>pass (vulgar or not).
>
Call the folks at NOW and ask them. I assume the Clintons approve of NOW's
agenda.
>We should have elected Dole if we
>wanted someone who wasn't a sexual dynamo.
>
Sexual dynamo? Jesus. Is that what we're calling compulsive fellatees these
days? You can't really be suggesting that we base our votes on the sexual
dynamism of the candidate. Or can you?
>I think this whole thing makes them and us look like a bunch
>of hypocritical, puritanical morons.
>
Hypocritical, puritanical morons like Daniel Moynihan? Bob Kerrey? Diane
Feinstein? Joe Lieberman? Or maybe Patricia Ireland, who said Clinton was
acting like 'a horse's patoot?' Are they the sort of moron you had in mind?
Coming up on 9:00 --'Meet the Press' beckons. Should be a helluva show today,
what with all those hypocrites and puritans spouting off.
kjf
Sasha Stone
Woody Allen
Roman Polanski
On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 FISH...@SNYDELAB.DELHI.EDU wrote:
> As opposed to polite politics? Seems to me I recall Lawrence Walsh handing
> down a totally spurious indictment of Casper Weinberger just in time for an
> election. Reagan's staff didn't kvetch and go boo-hoo and fling self-pity
> around -- they dealt with it, like professional pols who know this sort of
> thing is going to happen. Politics... you can't live with it, you can't put
> it on a stagecoach out of town. If Starr gets your goat, you can aim the
> blame gun at 1) Janet Reno, who appointed him and specified his mandate,
> 2) the Democrat Congress that crafted the IC statute, 3) the campaign of
> disinformation and obstruction engineered by the White House, 4) Clinton,
> for providing such fertile ground for suspicion, and 5) Starr's bad hair
> and unfortunate buck teeth. Not very telegenic
>
Yeah, I know. I agree with you. But I also agree with Janet Reno who
stated that the OIC wasn't to be used for partisan snits, which (it seems)
is what it has become. But if it's about politics, let's say it's about
politics and not about the Constitution. He lied under oath in a case
that was thrown out of court. Let's just decide whether or not that is an
impeachable offense. Then again, it's not for us to decide is it.
> Perhaps for the same reason Ms Hill waited for ten years to complain about
> Judge Thomas.
>
Except that Hill wasn't suing for damages. She wanted nothing out of it.
Sure, she's on the lecture circuit now but according to her she doesn't
make much money from it. Jones was after money but more importantly, she
was backed by right wingers desperate to bring down this president.
>
> Listen to yourself, Sasha. You're admitting that the President of the United
> States is a flasher, and excusing him on grounds that that isn't *real*
> sexual harassment. Being flashed by the governor of your state is a 'small
> thing' and the lowly flashee is 'whining.' How far will you bend over back-
> wards to excuse this man's behavior? And why? It's beginning to seem as if
> half the citizenry has fallen victim to some bizarre variation of the
> Stockholm Syndrome.
>
Look, we don't know what happened when Jones went up to Clinton's room.
We don't know if there was flirtation at first or anything. All we know
is Jones' side. Moreover, there is nothing in Starr's report that would
confirm that Clinton made an advances toward Lewinsky that weren't
expressly invited. She told him she had a crush him, suggested the cigar
thing ("we can do that too some time"), flirted intensely with him,
according to her own testimony. Jones alleges that Clinton, a cute and
charismatic politician who could nail Miss Arkansas would risk it all to
expose himself to *Jones*? You trust her intentions? I don't. I never
did. And if a woman like Jones and come forward and ruin a career over
something so incredibly insubstantial then this is only the beginning of a
long and ugly chapter in American history.
> You imply that presidents don't make 'serious decisions that affect us for
> decades to come.' In a sense that's true -- their decisions affect the entire
> world, not just us. There aren't quite as many checks and balances in foreign
> policy. Do you really think presidents deserve less scrutiny than justices?
Yes I do. When it comes to their personal beliefs. But now that you
mention it, I don't really think Anita Hill had grounds to try to get
Thomas dismissed because of what he said and did to her. I didn't want
him appointed because he was conservative. But that's moot I suppose.
> Should that maxim have applied to Nixon too, on grounds that he was 'our
> president?'
There's a huge difference between sexual escapades (even lying about them)
and manipulating a grand cover-up as Nixon did. I don't have time right
now to go into it but isn't that common knowledge?
> Let's remind ourselves of exactly what Hill's accusation was -- that Thomas
> made a couple of crude remarks in a high-pressure law office. Unheard of.
> No touchy-feely, no come-on, just a couple of remarks. No one on that
> committee thought it was worth pursuing until Nina Totenberg forced their
hand.
> After all the flummery, they approved the nomination just as they would have
> without the charade. And if Hill is a conservative, I'm Queen Marie of
> Romania.
>
She was at the time otherwise she wouldn't have worked with Thomas, right?
>
> All very venal and scurrilous, I agree. What does it have to do with what
> Clinton did, and what Clinton is? The messenger may be a creep, but she's
> still only the messenger.
>
As I see it, lying under oath is about the only thing he can be judged
for. I am not in any position to stand in judgment of Clinton's sex life.
We are a funny country. We seem to admire those men who got away with it.
And now that we are seeing first hand what would have been funny little
anecdotes in biographies after Clinton's term we are acting so
self-righteous and pure. Where is the nudge-nudge wink-wink? Suddenly it
disappeared? How'd that happen?
>
> Nixon's misdeeds were serious and misguided but never as pathetic and
juvenile.
> Clinton's satyriasis, narcissism, and invincible dishonesty have led to
> different sorts of misdeed, perhaps less profound but equally unsuitable.
>
Well, I don't feel comfortable policing anyone's sex life (except Woody's
of course). Lying under oath is another story. If we send out a message
that nothing will happen to you if you lie under oath then we're in big
trouble. That is what I worry most about. But then I think, the question
never should have been asked in the first place. It's like the McCarthy
hearings. No one had a right to ask those questions and if I had been
asked them I would have lied too. I don't know that I would have the
balls to lie on the stand about a sexual affair, though. I just can't
imagine anyone having the right to find out about a person's sex life just
because they are being sued. Think about it: if someone decided to sue
you they could find out anything they wanted about your private life.
Doesn't that scare you?
> So, he's insincere, he's a flasher, but despite his recklessness and miserable
> judgment you don't want to sacrifice him because...
>
Because I don't want four more or eight more years of Republican reign.
I hate the Republicans. Their anti-choice, anti-gay agenda makes me want
to scream. Clinton may not be the ideal candidate but it's clear to me
that his brought down is a political move by the right to regain the
presidency. And that is what really pisses me off.
>
> Oh. Is that what he's been doing? Clinton's most lasting legacy, other than
> scandal and embarrassment, is a solid GOP majority in Congress, soon to be
> even more solid. So much for looking after your issues.
>
Right, I know. He's the most Republican Democrat ever to hold office. He
sold out Welfare, never held true to his original platform, etc. But he's
the lesser of two evils. He is pro-choice. And he is considerate of
education, the power of tobacco companies and then there's Hillary Rodham.
She's half the reason I voted for him in the first place. All of her
ideas have now been flushed down the toilet.
>
> Neither the worst faux pas by Reagan or Bush or even First Comedian Dan
Quayle,
> nor the gnarliest bit of rhetoric by Pat or Newt ever made us the global
> laughingstock we've become under Clinton.
>
Only because people can't believe we are taking his philandering so
seriously. Under Reagan we were a laughing stock, we were also hated the
world over.
>
> As I understand current theory, sex between a powerful boss and a barely adult
> underling not only cannot be consensual, but is de facto exploitative. Or do
> I misunderstand?
>
She told everyone on God's
green earth about the affair then threatened to tell her parents if he
didn't get her a job. She wasn't being exploited. She was the president's
girlfriend and then got dumped. She got angry, and the rest is history.
It's very FATAL ATTRACTION if you ask me. Why do people insist on seeing
Monica as a victim?
> Call the folks at NOW and ask them. I assume the Clintons approve of NOW's
> agenda.
>
Yeah well I don't. I can't stand that extremist group, Patricia Ireland
in particular.
>
> Sexual dynamo? Jesus. Is that what we're calling compulsive fellatees these
> days? You can't really be suggesting that we base our votes on the sexual
> dynamism of the candidate. Or can you?
>
Well, I'm saying that part of his popularity with women is his charm and
sex appeal. Though I must say, reading that report makes him seem gross
and unappealing, not because of how nasty it is but because of the "not
finishing" thing. I imagine how horrible it would be to go through all
the motion of the blow job and then have him pull away and say it's not
right. It's so hysterical because it's backwards. The woman should be
pushing him away. Which again, makes Paula Jones' claim seem unbelievable
to me.
> Hypocritical, puritanical morons like Daniel Moynihan? Bob Kerrey? Diane
> Feinstein? Joe Lieberman? Or maybe Patricia Ireland, who said Clinton was
> acting like 'a horse's patoot?' Are they the sort of moron you had in mind?
>
Well, no comment on Patricia Ireland, since I can't stand her. Maybe Joe
Lieberman is an honest guy of the bunch, but you can't think that politics
isn't playing into this with an election coming up. Also, many politicians
rode on Clinton's coat tails into office and now they're turning their
backs on him. I don't blame them, they want to save their jobs, but (imo)
no one should sit in moral judgment unless their records are squeaky
clean. Otherwise, they'll be sorry.
> Coming up on 9:00 --'Meet the Press' beckons. Should be a helluva show today,
> what with all those hypocrites and puritans spouting off.
Yeah, I watched it. Nobody is happier about all this than the press.
They've had a field day.
Sasha
J.M. Jamieson
>Moreover, there is nothing in Starr's report that would
>confirm that Clinton made any advances toward Lewinsky that weren't
>expressly invited. She told him she had a crush him, suggested the cigar
>thing ("we can do that too some time"),.....
Yes Sasha this remark of yours certainly sums it up for sure. Fortunately
it has been confirmed that it wasn't a Cuban cigar and so the whole
impeachment thingee can indeed be laid, and well laid I'm sure, to rest.
If it had been a Cuban cigar well that would have been, as Jessie Helms
would say, treason itself and very impeachable. It would clearly have been
sacriledge as well to one such as I who is of course currently smoking one
of those divine items.
OCC
Favorite line from the Coen Bros.
Charlie is charging down the hallway, the fire racing along with him. He
shouts:
"Look upon me! I'll show you the life of the mind! I'll Show you the life
of the mind!
Mac
P.S. Wasn't Trent Lott seen smoking a cigar around that time??
http://www.odyssey.on.ca/~jjamieson/
ICQ#17834084
If you want your email to be private use PGP. http://pgp.rivertown.net/
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
oh for heaven's sake, Henry. What's the point. So, onward and upward.
>Yeah, I know. I agree with you. But I also agree with Janet Reno who
>stated that the OIC wasn't to be used for partisan snits, which (it seems)
>is what it has become. But if it's about politics, let's say it's about
>politics and not about the Constitution.
>
You imply that if it's about politics, it's not about the Constitution. But
what is the Constitution if not a political document, a blueprint for political
procedures? If impeachment were meant to be a legal procedure, it would be
put to the Supreme Court. The Constitution very carefully assigns impeachment
to Congress, making it a specifically political process, subject to all the
tides and wind that accompany politics. Those partisan snits, like 'gridlock,'
are built-in and part of the plan. Checks and balances, anyone? The minority
party is always the one which complains about 'partisanship.'
>Except that Hill wasn't suing for damages. She wanted nothing out of it.
>Sure, she's on the lecture circuit now but according to her she doesn't
>make much money from it. Jones was after money but more importantly, she
>was backed by right wingers desperate to bring down this president.
>
Hill wanted nothing out of it?. She had her season in front of the camera,
and she's been a faux-feminist hero for seven years. Do I misremember, or
did Jones turn down a 700G settlement against her lawyers' advice? And
again, Jones had her righties, Hill had her lefties. Six of one...
>Look, we don't know what happened when Jones went up to Clinton's room.
>We don't know if there was flirtation at first or anything. All we know
>is Jones' side.
>
And we know Clinton's side.
>Moreover, there is nothing in Starr's report that would
>confirm that Clinton made an advances toward Lewinsky that weren't
>expressly invited. She told him she had a crush him, suggested the cigar
>thing ("we can do that too some time"), flirted intensely with him,
>according to her own testimony.
>
And Clinton had a choice -- take advantage of the situation, or have her
transferred out of his hair.
>Jones alleges that Clinton, a cute and
>charismatic politician who could nail Miss Arkansas would risk it all to
>expose himself to *Jones*? You trust her intentions? I don't. I never
>did.
>
There's no accounting for taste. Does Clinton strike you as being particularly
fastidious in this regard?
>And if a woman like Jones and come forward and ruin a career over
>something so incredibly insubstantial then this is only the beginning of a
>long and ugly chapter in American history.
>
The telling phrase here is 'a woman like Jones'. How dare this trailer-trash
accuse Our President! This is all, at bottom, about class and style, isn't it?
Here's an experiment. Substitute 'Hill' for 'Jones' in the above quote, and
see how it plays.
>I don't really think Anita Hill had grounds to try to get
>Thomas dismissed because of what he said and did to her. I didn't want
>him appointed because he was conservative.
>
In other words, you approve of railroading a nominee because of political
differences. Is that permissible for Clinton's opponents, as well as for
Thomas's?
>She was at the time otherwise she wouldn't have worked with Thomas, right?
>
Not unless there was a litmus test for staff lawyers at the EOC, which I doubt.
>As I see it, lying under oath is about the only thing he can be judged
>for. I am not in any position to stand in judgment of Clinton's sex life.
>We are a funny country. We seem to admire those men who got away with it.
>And now that we are seeing first hand what would have been funny little
>anecdotes in biographies after Clinton's term we are acting so
>self-righteous and pure. Where is the nudge-nudge wink-wink?
>
Don't you connect the demise of the nudge-wink with the growth of feminism?
Ironic, isn't it.
>Well, I don't feel comfortable policing anyone's sex life...[etc.]
>
I'll just refer you back to my five 'If Starr gets your goat' answers.
>Think about it: if someone decided to sue
>you they could find out anything they wanted about your private life.
>Doesn't that scare you?
>
I'd imagine some evidence would have to be presented to demonstrate that my
private life was relevant. I don't know. In any case, my private life
would put judge and jury right to sleep.
>Clinton may not be the ideal candidate but it's clear to me
>that his brought down is a political move by the right to regain the
>presidency. And that is what really pisses me off.
>
Assuming for a moment that that's true... didn't you just say you approved of
the trumped-up campaign against Clarence Thomas? Surely, we must be even-
handed and bipartisan about such things. Anyway, it's not at all clear that
those nasty R*p*bl*c*ns would benefit by giving Clinton the boot.
>Right, I know. He's the most Republican Democrat ever to hold office. He
>sold out Welfare, never held true to his original platform, etc. But he's
>the lesser of two evils. He is pro-choice. And he is considerate of
>education, the power of tobacco companies and then there's Hillary Rodham.
>She's half the reason I voted for him in the first place. All of her
>ideas have now been flushed down the toilet.
>
And what did it profit you to elect a man whose hubris would cause a GOP
landslide, assuring that your pet programs would never see the light? And
who flushed Hillary's pet projects? The Dem-controlled congress of 93-94.
>Only because people can't believe we are taking his philandering so
>seriously. Under Reagan we were a laughing stock, we were also hated the
>world over.
>
Who, for instance, hated us under Reagan who didn't hate us before Reagan?
And who was laughing? The Russians? Khadaffi?
>She told everyone on God's
>green earth about the affair then threatened to tell her parents if he
>didn't get her a job. She wasn't being exploited. She was the president's
>girlfriend and then got dumped. She got angry, and the rest is history.
>It's very FATAL ATTRACTION if you ask me. Why do people insist on seeing
>Monica as a victim?
>
Again, I was just quoting the feminist doctrine that power relationships
preclude consent. But let's leave dogma aside and lean back and see what we
have. The president of the most powerful nation on earth, known to be a
chronic philanderer, has been elected on promise of good behavior. A hot-to-
trot young intern presents herself, rouged and powdered and ready to rock 'n'
roll. The President of the United States has a simple choice -- 1) leap
right in, knowing full well he's going to have to deny it, or 2) send the
baggage packing. For $64,000, tell us which choice indicates mature judgment
and discipline, and which choice suggests suicidal stupidity and a finger in
the eye of the folks who elected him.
>Well, I'm saying that part of his popularity with women is his charm and
>sex appeal.
>
With any luck we've learned our lesson -- never elect the sexy guy. Give me
a beady-eyed old skinflint any day.
>Though I must say, reading that report makes him seem gross
>and unappealing, not because of how nasty it is but because of the "not
>finishing" thing. I imagine how horrible it would be to go through all
>the motion of the blow job and then have him pull away and say it's not
>right. It's so hysterical because it's backwards. The woman should be
>pushing him away. Which again, makes Paula Jones' claim seem unbelievable
>to me.
>
Thanks for sharing that. We've created a new political phenomenon -- the
Pornographic Presidency. Aren't we proud.
>Well, no comment on Patricia Ireland, since I can't stand her. Maybe Joe
>Lieberman is an honest guy of the bunch, but you can't think that politics
>isn't playing into this with an election coming up. Also, many politicians
>rode on Clinton's coat tails into office and now they're turning their
>backs on him. I don't blame them, they want to save their jobs, but (imo)
>no one should sit in moral judgment unless their records are squeaky
>clean. Otherwise, they'll be sorry.
>
A couple of pols have already taken the bull by the horns and publicly
announced past sins -- and whaddya know, the axe hasn't fallen. This is
not about sex. Sex was a catalyst, and a metonymy. (Or is it synecdoche?)
>Yeah, I watched it. Nobody is happier about all this than the press.
>They've had a field day.
>
The polls suggest that most people are tired of this, but the TV ratings tell
a different story. What's the more accurate gauge?... what people tell a
pollster, or what they watch at home when they switch on the tube?
kjf
Shari L. Rosenblum
hearing snippets of it in neighborhood shops and around the law firm
water cooler, as they say.
To me, the thing for which Clinton is most despicable (and no doubt
I've written this here before) is his total disdain for the women
with whom he has sexual contact -- Hillary included, apparently.
The factions that claim him as a defender of the rights of women seem
to be overlooking the fact that prerequisite to a reliable established
base of rights protection is a level of respect, equality in the
honor one bestows naturally upon others. Those of us to whom the
protection of rights is important, who understand that the articulation
of support from a safe ideological distance, buffed up with a few
token (but insignificant) actions that suggest support is not the
sort of legacy of rights protection upon which we can rely -- understand
too that punctuating the symbolic gestures with manifest scorn for
those ostensibly "protected" counteracts all the gestures with a far
more profound substance, and one that will leave a far more lasting
legacy: the substance of inequality, repression, regression . . .
To have defenders of the rights of women -- equal rights to body,
choice, sexuality -- disparaging sexual women for their looks,
their class, or their illusions about sexuality -- discrediting
them for reporting, admitting, sharing -- is to have made great
strides for the battle against women in society, against equality,
against sexual freedom, reproductive freedom, autonomy. It turns
out that it is not Starr, then, who has scored points for the
anti-democratic platform, but Clinton himself, and many of his
staunchest supporters.
For the defenders of equality to support a man who relies on sexual
double standards, misogynistic philandering (no, unfortunately,
that's not an oxymoron), and class biases to assert and reaffirm
his innocence, righteousness, excuse is to strike a blow for the
other side.
And moreover . . .
It's not about sex -- even the damned Starr report is not about sex --
it's about the revelation of betrayal, the betrayal of the people who
voted for Clinton and to whom he lied, the betrayal of the political
system which Clinton was bound to uphold, the betrayal of the legal
system, and the betrayal of a young woman who thought,
and was allowed to keep thinking, that her acts were not mere
meaningless sexual favors, that she was respected as a person.
For the record, the conflict between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
was not about sex, either. Like Clinton/Lewinsky, Clinton/Jones,
Clinton/Flowers, Clinton/Rodham it was about the use of sex, sexuality,
as intimidation, as power act. As manipulation of power.
The legal questions can be left to other places (they haven't really
been at issue here) -- but the moral questions are clear. Sure,
we can forgive Clinton for lying to us, if we like, but can we, should
we, really forgive him for asking us, expecting us, to lie to ourselves?
And on a last note, what about those who laugh at us? They laugh that
we take sexual equality, respect, honor so seriously as to hold a man
in power to it? They laugh that we do not have special standards for
our Yale-bred politicians? They laugh that even "a woman like that"
can challenge the power of the presidency? They laugh that we never
forget that our politicians rule at our command, and that they are ever
answerable to us, should we be asking? Well, then, as Donald O'Connor
would sing, let us keep on and make 'em laugh.
Shari
Peter Giordano
> You imply that if it's about politics, it's not about the Constitution. But
> what is the Constitution if not a political document, a blueprint for
political
> procedures? If impeachment were meant to be a legal procedure, it would be
> put to the Supreme Court. The Constitution very carefully assigns impeachment
> to Congress, making it a specifically political process, subject to all the
> tides and wind that accompany politics. Those partisan snits, like
'gridlock,'
> are built-in and part of the plan. Checks and balances, anyone? The minority
> party is always the one which complains about 'partisanship.'
I say:
The above is of course factully inaccurate - Check the FEDERALIST and see
if "gridlock" is mentioned - Check THOMAS to see which party uses
"partisanship (etc.) more - Cynical comments like the above aside our way
of government is worth defending
Somebody said:
> Hill wanted nothing out of it?. She had her season in front of the camera,
> and she's been a faux-feminist hero for seven years. Do I misremember, or
> did Jones turn down a 700G settlement against her lawyers' advice? And
> again, Jones had her righties, Hill had her lefties. Six of one...
I say:
And it has been established that Paula Jones is making a living, and a
rather nice one, as a professional victim - New teeth, new clothes, new
duds and all via tax free donations - Anita Hill on the other hand came to
Washington, said her piece and went back to her job
Somebody said:
> The telling phrase here is 'a woman like Jones'. How dare this trailer-trash
> accuse Our President! This is all, at bottom, about class and style, isn't
it?
> Here's an experiment. Substitute 'Hill' for 'Jones' in the above quote, and
> see how it plays.
>
I say:
And it plays very well - Anita Hill did not milk the public for donations
- Anita Hill did not hound Clarence Thomas for 4 years
James Frame
Got to turn it off, now....
CHAPTER XXVIII
When the military and naval authorities at Kinston were inform of the
weakening of the important post at Sackett's Harbor by the withdrawal of
troops and vessels for the expedition against York, they resolved to attempt
the capture of the place, or to destroy the new ship-of-war then on the stocks
and other public property there. The capture of York made them circumspect,
for the flushed victors might turn there faces toward Kingston; but when it
was known that Dearborn and Chauncey were about to attack Fort George and its
dependencies, it was resolved to assail Sackett's Harbor immediately. The
prize was more attractive than now ever before. Besides being the principal
place of deposit on the lake for military and naval stores, and a fine vessel
was there nearly completed, all the property captured at York was deposited
there. The possession or destruction of these by the British would have given
them the command of Lake Ontario, and a decided advantage during the whole
campaign. With singular remissness of duty on the part of the commanding
general, these had been left exposed. The guard detailed for their
protection, under Colonel Baker, was utterly inadequate for the task. It
consisted of parts of the First and Second Regiments of Dragoons, numbering
about two hundred and fifty men, fifty or sixty artillerists, and from eighty
to one hundred infantry, composed chiefly of invalids, recruits, and fragments
of companies left behind when the expedition sailed for York. The dragoons,
dismounted, manned Fort Tompkins, a considerable work on the bluff, on the
west side of the Harbor, and covering the site of the present residence and
garden of the naval commandant of the station. The artillerists, under
Lieutenant Ketchum, were also there. A little north of the village, on the
east side of the Harbor, opposite Fort Tompkins, was a small work, erected [!]
principally by the labor of a company of exempts, called Fort Volunteer.
General Jacob Brown of the New York Militia, who, having finished the six
month's service for which he was called to the field at the beginning of the
war, as we have seen, was residing at his home in Brownsville, on the Black
River, a few miles from Sackett's Harbor, had been requested by General
Dearborn, and urged by Colonel Macomb, to assume chief command in that region.
He was unwilling to interfere with his esteemed friend, Colonel Backus, and
agreed to take command only in the event of an actual invasion. He went to
head-quarters frequently to advise with Backus concerning preparations for
defense, and it was understood between them that if the enemy should threaten
the post, Brown was to call the neighboring militia to the Harbor and take
chief command....
the foregoing exerpted from The Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812
by Benson J. Lossing
...a crucial moment in American History that will be made into a major movie
... someday, maybe, probably...
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
> we take sexual equality, respect, honor so seriously as to hold a man
> in power to it? They laugh that we do not have special standards for
> our Yale-bred politicians? They laugh that even "a woman like that"
> can challenge the power of the presidency? They laugh that we never
> forget that our politicians rule at our command, and that they are ever
> answerable to us, should we be asking? Well, then, as Donald O'Connor
> would sing, let us keep on and make 'em laugh.
>
> Shari
Wow.
Well said, (the last paragraph, that is, the rest of it I didn't really
understand even though I read it a couple of times...I'm blaming it on
Monday morning rather than being too imbecilic to understand a Shari
Rosenblum post, but I could be wrong).
About Clinton, oh, hooey, who cares? Who cares about politics? I used to
but I don't anymore -- I'm kjf's
idealist-confronted-with-realism-and-turned-into-misanthrope. The best I
can do is do the best I can to stay informed and stay as involved as I can
stomach. This means I pick what is important to me and I try to find the
candidates who agree with me.
I do wish I hadn't read that ditty in Sasha's post about the cigar
thang...the bile is still in my throat after reading it.
And one thing about women, if we don't start taking responsibility for our
own actions, we will never be taken seriously. Lewinsky was no Lolita (I'm
never going to let that go, fellow cin-lers, sorry to say). But then, the
same goes for politicians, and Clinton should have thought about Nancy's
war against drugs rather than Nike's advertising for dollars. (Trying to
be clever and not succeeding.)
The question I must ask is this: do we really expect anything more from
our politicians? Do we not think they are all liars and/or libertines
and/or power hungry/abusive and/or corrupt? Show me a Mr. Smith and I bet
there will be a dozen Ken Starrs that will find out s/he fondled a twelve
year old girl scout or had a homosexual (gasp!) affair or threw a bunch of
elderly folks out of nursing home situated on prime real estate so s/he
could build condos, etc. Is this excusing it? Nope, but I'm a realist now
and boy would I welcome a Mr. Smith but I'd be as dubious as anyone if s/he
ever showed their face.
I cannot believe my own defeatist attitude, but I wish Clinton would resign
and let us all out of this nightmare of media and political machination.
He should think less of what he will be to history and to this country and
think more of what this is doing to his wife and daughter. But thinking
that a man would put family before anything else is just a little bit of
that idealist coming out (down! won't that dog every die?) and Clinton's
proved that he really couldn't care less about either of the important
women in his life. Sad. Boy, I really liked him once, celebrated his win
as if the world had just changed, irrevocably, for the better. God, how
dare he be human?
I have no more faith left in the system. The only thing I can count on is
what Shari alluded to above, that I can give a call to my Congressperson
and step in to the voting booth and have my opinion be known and counted.
We're lucky about that and regardless of all this bullshit, we shouldn't
forget that we are lucky and continue trudging on despite the state of the
Union's politics/politicians.
-Kristen
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>hearing snippets of it in neighborhood shops and around the law firm
>
From a water cooler elsewhere in cyberspace comes this anecdote-cum-OCC by
one of the interviewees on the PBS/KANE show...
***
...the documentary crew that did the PBS Citizen Kane piece had
worked in Little Rock on a Frontline piece three months before the 92
election and three months after. In 1994, when the Reeps had taken
Congress and Clinton was termed "irrelevant," this film crew predicted two
things: Clinton's reelection and his eventual disgrace. They said
Clinton's vaunted charm would take care of the first and his incredible
arrogance would insure the second. In their experience, those in powerful
positions choose their partners in illicit activities from equally high
places, so that discretion is assured. (Remarks were then made
linking Hillary and Vernon Jordan, something I've never seen
hitting the airwaves, perhaps proving the point.)
***
kjf
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
>proved that he really couldn't care less about either of the important
>women in his life.
>
Last night on '60 Minutes', Leslie Stahl asked Linda Bloodworth-Thomason,
'When you think of Chelsea, don't you just want to slap him?' It's come to
that -- a network correspondent on a reputable mainstream show can say that
of the President of the USA. Pathetic.
Serendipitously, I finally found a copy of PRIMARY COLORS on the shelf today.
This is intermission. So far it's struck me as reasonably even-handed in
portraying the maddening contradictions of a talented monster, and the
suffering he imposes on his adoring staff and his family. Significantly,
I think, his young son is introduced then whisked away, lest we ponder
the effect on the child of his father's malfeasances. There's an eerie
prophetic tone, and I'm looking forward to the second hour. I'm curious to
know how this film would strike someone who saw it new, then again in the
past few days.
kjf
Sasha Stone
>
> And on a last note, what about those who laugh at us? They laugh that
> we take sexual equality, respect, honor so seriously as to hold a man
> in power to it? They laugh that we do not have special standards for
> our Yale-bred politicians? They laugh that even "a woman like that"
> can challenge the power of the presidency? They laugh that we never
> forget that our politicians rule at our command, and that they are ever
> answerable to us, should we be asking? Well, then, as Donald O'Connor
> would sing, let us keep on and make 'em laugh.
>
The Paula Jones case is enough to make anyone laugh. It's enough to all
but obliterate sexual harassment as a legitimate charge. Sure, Clinton
betrayed us (though I don't see how; I always knew he was a creep but he
was always just a little bit less of a creep than the other side, their
staunch anti-choice position, anti-gay, etc) but that doesn't mean this
whole thing wasn't just dirty, filthy politics. I hate how everyone makes
out like this whole witch hunt was a legitimate search for the truth. I
hate Clinton for being so stupid and jeopardizing everything for a power
play, as you say. He jeopardized a lot more than his career. All those
people who worked for him, stood up for him, put their careers on the line
for him were all let down. His wife, his daughter. But that doesn't
excuse the wrong-doing of the other side. I'll go to my grave believing
that. The Paula Jones thing, the deposition (forcing him to out something
that was consentual, between two people, none of our friggin' business) -
it reminds me of the McCarthy hearings where were asked impossible
questions. Everyone acts like it would have been so easy for him to tell
the truth. It wouldn't have been.
Finally, a note on Clinton himself and why I am so loathe to totally blame
him - he comes from a poor background, a single mom, a drug addict
brother, whatever. To me, his problems are our problems. He is more
representative of the America I know than anyone else. He is greatly
flawed and so are we. We are so self-righteous it's disgusting to me. I
grew up poor, around people who were so hungry to do anything to get up
and out of the poverty. I look at Clinton and see the world I knew. His
need to please everyone, his need to be the good boy up front but the bad
boy behind the scenes, forever sabotaging his successes. Doesn't it sound
familiar? Don't you know people like that? Don't you have a
relative or a friend who had so much promise but then ruined it all
in the end? I do. I know that song very well. I was always touched
and amazed that Clinton rose above it all somehow and became
President of the United States. But then, it always catches up with
you, doesn't it.
Where is Jesus when you really need Him?
Let He who never sinned, etc.
Ironically, it's been the religious leaders I've seen lately who've been
the most rational, the most compassionate and the most understanding.
History will not treat this whole situation kindly, believe me. It will be
viewed as another hysterical moment in a society inclined to hysteria.
And if I have to see a Republican elected because of this I'm going to
blow up a building.
Sasha
Cine...@aol.com
> For the record, the conflict between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas
> was not about sex, either. Like Clinton/Lewinsky, Clinton/Jones,
> Clinton/Flowers, Clinton/Rodham it was about the use of sex, sexuality,
> as intimidation, as power act. As manipulation of power.
The Hill/Thomas episode was definitely about the manipulation of power, but I
don't see that same element in the Clinton/Lewinsky/Flowers/ soap opera.
Clinton showed an appalling lack of judgement not to mention a rather
delusional view of what constitutes sexual relations, but I don't recall
reading where he threatened these women with their job or wielded his power to
intentionally harm them. I think he is just a rather clueless individual who
can't seem to keep his zipper shut. This entire Clinton/Lewinsky/Starr thing
is disgusting (there was *way* too much information reported) and a complete
and total disgrace, but I do not see a similarity to the Hill/Thomas incident.
Cheryl
OCC: I watched IMPROMPTU recently. It is about the romance between George
Sand and Chopin and stars Hugh Grant, Judy Davis, Emma Thompson, Julian Sands,
and Bernadette Peters. Fans of romantic period movies will enjoy it. I
certainly did.
Sasha Stone
>
> Serendipitously, I finally found a copy of PRIMARY COLORS on the shelf today.
> This is intermission. So far it's struck me as reasonably even-handed in
> portraying the maddening contradictions of a talented monster, and the
> suffering he imposes on his adoring staff and his family. Significantly,
> I think, his young son is introduced then whisked away, lest we ponder
> the effect on the child of his father's malfeasances. There's an eerie
> prophetic tone, and I'm looking forward to the second hour. I'm curious to
> know how this film would strike someone who saw it new, then again in the
> past few days.
>
PRIMARY COLORS pretty much sums it up. I take this opportunity to again
say that I hope Kathy Bates is nominated for her role. But, yeah, you can
take it to the bank, the contradictions, broken promises riding on a weak
wave of hope. It was also interesting in its comment on the scandal
machine, and how many good candidates will never see the office because
either they have skeletons in the closet or because they can't play us the
way we need to be played. What is it we require from our politicians
anymore? What can we require? We want someone perfect, we want someone
charismatic, we want someone who will lie so that we feel better, we want
someone who will make promises they can't keep. How many presidents have
come into office in my lifetime and been called on for their inability to
keep promises? Three words: no new taxes. And Reagan's "I can't recall"
turned out to, in fact, probably be true. What do we want, a front man or
the real mccoy? I haven't seen the real mccoy since I've been of voting
age and I doubt I ever will. Seems to me that FDR was the last good one.
And I missed him. Too bad. Oh, and but he had a mistresss. Wonder
what the press would have done to him.
Sasha
Sasha Stone
Sasha
Shari L. Rosenblum
>The Paula Jones case is enough to make anyone laugh. It's enough to all
>but obliterate sexual harassment as a legitimate charge.
Hardly. If your boss -- direct or distant -- exposed himself to you and
told you to "kiss it," you'd have a legitimate charge. It would be clear
that the act itself -- however you responded, and however he responded to
your response -- was an act of intimidation, power assertion, that
compromised you in your position, even for a moment. It would be clear
that the perpetration of the act represented your boss's sense of you
-- of your place in the workforce -- of your value relative to his.
And that that sense, your place, your value were defined by your
sexuality and your willingness to accept his vision of your sexuality
as your essence. Surely, it is clear to anyone who's been treated to
such egregious behavior that detriment is not limited to bald economic
measures. It is scandalous that any law would hold it is, or that
any person would support such a law on its face.
Whether or not such an act is recognized as "sexual harassment" under the
law of a given state tells you more about the state, the quality of its
representative base, and its entrenched attitudes about gender roles in
society than it does about the acts that fall just outside the terminology.
Are you saying that you're generally impressed with the
progressiveness of the Arkansas legislature?
One may well argue that sexual harassment laws are vague and amorphous,
but I believe the problem there is more in the gender bias of the
terminology (and the enforcement) than in the crafting of the laws
themselves. But I think we do a disservice to ourselves, to our
daughters, and to our daughters' daughters if we trash the system
rather than perfect it.
>Sure, Clinton
>betrayed us (though I don't see how; I always knew he was a creep but he
>was always just a little bit less of a creep than the other side, their
>staunch anti-choice position, anti-gay, etc) but that doesn't mean this
>whole thing wasn't just dirty, filthy politics.
Politics are politics, of coruse, but the designations "dirty" and
"filthy" depend on one's partisanship, not on the specifics of the
political acts. You've admitted as much.
>The Paula Jones thing, the deposition (forcing him to out something
>that was consentual, between two people, none of our friggin' business) -
I cannot speak for the actual details of the deposition process -- I
didn't follow them. But I can tell you that evidence of
prior acts -- evidence that goes to show a modus operandi, for
example -- may well be legally relevant and admissible. To deny a plaintiff
the means to prove her case is to pervert the justice system, and a
President that would ask us to do so is unworthy of the power we've
entrusted to him.
>it reminds me of the McCarthy hearings where were asked impossible
>questions. Everyone acts like it would have been so easy for him to tell
>the truth. It wouldn't have been.
The truth is often difficult, and no one has suggested that it would have
been anything but so in this case. But the man took an oath -- swore
to the truth of his statements -- and then told out and out lies.
Not incomplete truths. Not misleading presentations of truth. But
out and out lies.
>Finally, a note on Clinton himself and why I am so loathe to totally blame
>him - he comes from a poor background, a single mom, a drug addict
>brother, whatever. To me, his problems are our problems. He is more
>representative of the America I know than anyone else.
And Paula Jones? And Gennifer Flowers? Their problems are not our
problems? Their insecurities? Their fears? Their human value?
And Monica Lewinsky is not worthy because her parents weren't
drug addicts? Or because she didn't get to Yale?
>We are so self-righteous it's disgusting to me.
No. This is not about self-righteousness; it's about integrity. Not
about what the man did, but about how he treated us when we caught him
red-handed. It's about demanding respect from those to whom we entrust
the running of our nation and our posterity.
>I look at Clinton and see the world I knew.
Yale law school and political privilege? Arrogance and delusions of
grandeur? Spitting in the face of those who support him, over and over
again, spitting in your face.
You wrote way back that you'd have been happy to be in Monica's place --
would you have been equally happy to have the man you defend so avidly
vilify you and denigrate your name to save his own? And how would you
feel if he did it to your daughter?
> His
>need to please everyone, his need to be the good boy up front but the bad
>boy behind the scenes, forever sabotaging his successes. Doesn't it sound
>familiar? Don't you know people like that?
Sure. But he is in control of his fate. I may pity him; but I wouldn't
defend him as the leader of my country.
Why don't you feel bad for Monica? Overweight and needy in a town of
beautiful people, wanting to be popular, wanting to be loved, disrespected
and disappointed through high school, finds herself the attention of the
leader of the free world, buys that she matters (secretaries and secret
service men make way for her), buys that she matters to him, but
sabotages her own good fortune because she needs to vindicate herself,
to show others that she matters, and then finds herself betrayed by
a friend, betrayed by her lover, betrayed by her political sisters,
and so on and so forth. Don't you know people like her?
The thing is, when you get down to it, that I don't see this only
as a battle between the Democrats and the Republicans. I see it as
a battle for the state of society, for political representation with
integrity and gender equality. And as long as that's what I'm fighting
for, both the Dems and the GOP have shown themselves to be potential
mortal enemies.
I think we spend too much time fretting about the animal on the party
banner -- I'm more concerned with the animals they put forth and
we elect. As far as I can tell, the rest is all just dirty,
filthy politics.
Shari
FISH...@snydelab.delhi.edu
a faithless, thoughtless, disorganized, undisciplined shit."
-- Susan Stanton, PRIMARY COLORS
>PRIMARY COLORS pretty much sums it up. I take this opportunity to again
>say that I hope Kathy Bates is nominated for her role.
>
Bates is a stitch, but as usual in a Nichols film, the acting is uniformly
first-rate. Nichols and Emma Thompson must really speak the same language --
she gets into Hillary's skin without overtly impersonating her. I can't say
the same for Travolta -- he's fun to watch, but he seems to be in an SNL
sketch. Maybe that's intentional. He's not onscreen as much as you'd expect
-- the movie is mostly about the people around him. Very shrewd move --
they're more interesting... no, strike that... more accessible than he is.
PRIMARY COLORS has serious third-act problems. For a while it sustains a
tragifarcical portrait of a libidinous, gluttonous pied piper who pursues
grand abstract dreams, unaware or uncaring of the individual lives he disrupts
along the way. When a key staffer dies late in the film, it seems like an
abrupt shift into melodrama -- then at the end, we're in slo-mo romanticism
as Jack and Susan waltz through the balloons at what we assume is an inaugural
ball. It reminded me of the famous last shot of CLOCKWORK ORANGE -- I was
cured, all right. Perhaps it was meant to. This movie demands more than
one viewing.
>What is it we require from our politicians
>anymore? What can we require? We want someone perfect, we want someone
>charismatic, we want someone who will lie so that we feel better, we want
>someone who will make promises they can't keep.
>
I want someone who knows his way around Washington power circles, understands
how Congress works, embraces with respect the powers and limitations of the
presidency, offers some expertise in foreign policy and credentials as
commander-in-chief, and doesn't go all gooey when the groupies bat their
eyelashes at him. As Newsweek points out this week, Bob Dole is suddenly
looking mighty good.
kjf
Ed Owens
> Finally, a note on Clinton himself and why I am so loathe to totally blame
> him - he comes from a poor background, a single mom, a drug addict
> brother, whatever. To me, his problems are our problems. He is more
> representative of the America I know than anyone else. He is greatly
> flawed and so are we. We are so self-righteous it's disgusting to me. I
> grew up poor, around people who were so hungry to do anything to get up
> and out of the poverty. I look at Clinton and see the world I knew. His
> need to please everyone, his need to be the good boy up front but the bad
> boy behind the scenes, forever sabotaging his successes. Doesn't it sound
> familiar? Don't you know people like that? Don't you have a
> relative or a friend who had so much promise but then ruined it all
> in the end? I do. I know that song very well. I was always touched
> and amazed that Clinton rose above it all somehow and became
> President of the United States. But then, it always catches up with
> you, doesn't it.
>
I have followed this debate with much interest since joining cinema-l
recently. And up until now, I have made good on my persoanl promise not to
get involved. However, I aould just like to make one comment about this:
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!
I am not self-righteous...I AM flawed...but I do not blame my persoanl
foibles on a) society, b) my bad childhood, or c) circumstances beyond my
control. I blame them on MY PERSONAL CHOICES and I take FULL RESPONSIBILITY
for them. Does that mean I'm better than anyone else? Not at all--just look
at my typos! : ) But it does mean that I have a better chance to overcome.
Is there injustice in the world? Certainly. Do certain people have a rougher
go of it than others? Of course. Alcoholic father beat you up as a kid? So
did mine, but that doesn't excuse either of us from trying to be better
parents.
My politics aren't important here. If Clinton says his deposition was
legally accurate, that's one thing. But to blame his current actions on some
sort of social malaise is irresponsible and indefensible.
Ed
Sasha Stone
crest a few points.
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Shari L. Rosenblum wrote:
> Hardly. If your boss -- direct or distant -- exposed himself to you and
> told you to "kiss it," you'd have a legitimate charge. It would be clear
> that the act itself -- however you responded, and however he responded to
> your response -- was an act of intimidation, power assertion, that
> compromised you in your position, even for a moment. It would be clear
> that the perpetration of the act represented your boss's sense of you
> -- of your place in the workforce -- of your value relative to his.
I don't believe Paula Jones' story to be true. She's changed it a number
of times, Clinton's m.o. is clearly different, according to the Starr
report and Jones has padded her accusations each and every time. I
question her timing, I question her charge. But even if all those things
were true, he wasn't really her boss in the technical sense. She never
could prove he ever did anything to thwart her rise, quite the opposite is
true. But if you want to boil it down: if my "boss" squired me into a
corner, exposed his pecker and said "kiss it" the way Jones described,
then yeah, I would consider that sexual harassment. I wouldn't sue for
damages, though. If I were a different kind of person I'd confront him.
I may blow the whistle on him but suing for damages cheapens her entire
position.
> And that that sense, your place, your value were defined by your
> sexuality and your willingness to accept his vision of your sexuality
> as your essence. Surely, it is clear to anyone who's been treated to
> such egregious behavior that detriment is not limited to bald economic
> measures. It is scandalous that any law would hold it is, or that
> any person would support such a law on its face.
>
It has never been proven that Clinton makes unwanted sexual advances. I
don't believe Kathleen Willey either and even Linda Tripp (who I actually
do believe wants to tell the truth) discounted her accusation. I don't
think Clinton ever would have invited Jones up had she not made some kind
of comment to someone about being attracted to him. So, yeah, Clinton is
probably like Magic Johnson, Mick Jaggar, Jack Nicholson, Warren Beatty.
When he sees a clear shot he takes it. A blow job is a blow job is a blow
job. But I don't believe he forces himself on unwilling participants.
Miss Arkansas, Monica, Miss America - they all confirmed that the sex was
way, way consentual (a word?).
> Whether or not such an act is recognized as "sexual harassment" under the
> law of a given state tells you more about the state, the quality of its
> representative base, and its entrenched attitudes about gender roles in
> society than it does about the acts that fall just outside the terminology.
> Are you saying that you're generally impressed with the
> progressiveness of the Arkansas legislature?
>
I don't think that consitutes sexual harassment in my mind. That's all
I'm saying. He made a pass at her. She turned him down. Later she
claimed he tried to stop her from leaving but that was years and years
later.
> One may well argue that sexual harassment laws are vague and amorphous,
> but I believe the problem there is more in the gender bias of the
> terminology (and the enforcement) than in the crafting of the laws
> themselves. But I think we do a disservice to ourselves, to our
> daughters, and to our daughters' daughters if we trash the system
> rather than perfect it.
>
I agree completely. But we also do a disservice if we let the system
reward hysteria thereby eliminating all possibility for real cases to
succeed when they come up. Paula Jones' claims are so absurd that anyone
could point to this in order to discount any woman's claims in the future
and not take them seriously.
>
> I cannot speak for the actual details of the deposition process -- I
> didn't follow them. But I can tell you that evidence of
> prior acts -- evidence that goes to show a modus operandi, for
> example -- may well be legally relevant and admissible. To deny a plaintiff
The judge ruled the Lewinsky stuff irrelevant.
> the means to prove her case is to pervert the justice system, and a
> President that would ask us to do so is unworthy of the power we've
> entrusted to him.
>
Yeah, sure. But to manipulate and take advantage of the system (funded by
right wing extremists who want the pres out of office) makes our rights as
citizens seem almost unworthy. She should have sued the newspaper or the
reporter who slandered her name if that's what she was worried about.
Anyone can sue anyone at any time. So Paula Jones' need to sue the
president is more important than our rights to *have* a president and to
have our programs looked at, our status overseas, etc. How could her need
to sue (which took years and years to gestate) suddenly outweigh our need
for leadership? *That's* why the president is held to different
standards. She doesn't have the right, in my opinion, to take him away
from us when we need him. Nobody does. She could have waited (if she'd
waited that many years anyway) until he was a citizen to sue, thereby
putting our needs before hers, but she didn't. Why? Because of The
Rutheford Institute, because of Susan Carpenter McMillan. That doesn't
bother you?
> The truth is often difficult, and no one has suggested that it would have
> been anything but so in this case. But the man took an oath -- swore
> to the truth of his statements -- and then told out and out lies.
> Not incomplete truths. Not misleading presentations of truth. But
> out and out lies.
>
Yeah, I know. And unfortunately, his true character has been outted. He
is a liar about his sex life. These aren't big lies, in my opinion,
though. This isn't like lying about using the CIA to spy on the opposing
party, for example.
> And Paula Jones? And Gennifer Flowers? Their problems are not our
> problems? Their insecurities? Their fears? Their human value?
> And Monica Lewinsky is not worthy because her parents weren't
> drug addicts? Or because she didn't get to Yale?
Would someone please tell me what Gennifer Flowers' problem is? I'm so
sick of her name coming up. She had a twelve year affair with Bill
Clinton. HOW IS THAT ABUSE for god's sake??? And Lewinsky, give me a
break. Jones is the only one who was "abused" by him. I'm so sick of
these wimpy women crying about this. Other than Jones (if her story is to
be believed) these women had the choice whether or not to sleep with this
man. Am I right?
> No. This is not about self-righteousness; it's about integrity. Not
> about what the man did, but about how he treated us when we caught him
> red-handed. It's about demanding respect from those to whom we entrust
> the running of our nation and our posterity.
>
Sure, he's a sleaze. I agree. But he's a sleaze we elected twice
*knowing* he was a sleaze. We are enablers, if anything. We ought to
take responsibility for our part in it.
> Yale law school and political privilege? Arrogance and delusions of
> grandeur? Spitting in the face of those who support him, over and over
> again, spitting in your face.
>
He got to Yale completely on his own, though. He wasn't born into it. He
worked hard, manipulated, whatever but he got there on his own. He's po'
white trash made good. Just like Nixon, ironically.
> You wrote way back that you'd have been happy to be in Monica's place --
> would you have been equally happy to have the man you defend so avidly
> vilify you and denigrate your name to save his own? And how would you
> feel if he did it to your daughter?
>
Well, if he did it to my daughter (which he never could because I would
have made sure she already knew that if she puts herself in the role of
victim she'll never have any power. Ever. But if he did something bad to
her I'd kill him. Or I'd cripple him with a baseball bat or something.).
Look, Monica was (sadly) living in a daydream. Whining about him not
calling her when he's *the President*. It's true, he messed with the
wrong girl. It's sad and it's true. But I can't and I won't see Monica
as an innocent victim. By the way, my daughter will be too smart to ever
get involved with the likes of Clinton.
I no longer would like to have been the one giving Clinton head,
incidently. After reading the report, the sex sounded weird and pathetic,
not exciting at all. It seemed sad to me. Like Clinton was doing what was
expected of him but not enjoying it. I was sad for Lewinsky for needing
to sleep with him so badly she'd degrade herself. But she did it to
herself. She flirted with him. She made a pass at him. She wasn't
twelve. She was 21. And that's old enough to know better but
unfortunately not old enough to have avoided the mistake. Clinton should
have known better. Clearly he had a need to self-destruct.
> Sure. But he is in control of his fate. I may pity him; but I wouldn't
> defend him as the leader of my country.
>
I think he's a pretty good leader all things considered.
> Why don't you feel bad for Monica? Overweight and needy in a town of
> beautiful people, wanting to be popular, wanting to be loved, disrespected
> and disappointed through high school, finds herself the attention of the
> leader of the free world, buys that she matters (secretaries and secret
> service men make way for her), buys that she matters to him, but
> sabotages her own good fortune because she needs to vindicate herself,
> to show others that she matters, and then finds herself betrayed by
> a friend, betrayed by her lover, betrayed by her political sisters,
> and so on and so forth. Don't you know people like her?
>
I used to, back in high school. I wouldn't consider Washington a town of
beautiful people, though. And I don't really consider her ugly or
anything - I think she's quite lovely. But, yeah, needy is a good word.
> The thing is, when you get down to it, that I don't see this only
> as a battle between the Democrats and the Republicans. I see it as
> a battle for the state of society, for political representation with
> integrity and gender equality. And as long as that's what I'm fighting
> for, both the Dems and the GOP have shown themselves to be potential
> mortal enemies.
>
I know, Share, but that's because you have a great respect for the
foundations upon which this country was laid. I see it as one hypocrisy
laid upon another.
> I think we spend too much time fretting about the animal on the party
> banner -- I'm more concerned with the animals they put forth and
> we elect. As far as I can tell, the rest is all just dirty,
> filthy politics.
That's true, I suppose. But this is clearly a right-wing attack. It has
been so from the beginning. If it weren't, if it were more legitimate,
the American people would be more willing to oust the pres. This just
doesn't seem like a good reason. I will note that his resigning would be
the best thing he could do at this point. But if he refuses to resign, I
hope he fights the impeachment.
James Frame
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>age and I doubt I ever will. Seems to me that FDR was the last good one.
>And I missed him. Too bad. Oh, and but he had a mistresss. Wonder
>what the press would have done to him.
>
What about Truman? He remained faithful to his wife until the end. He spoke
his mind about how he felt. He's one of the greatest presidents we ever had in
terms of honesty and integrity.
As for the press and FDR, which press do you mean? Today's press would eat
him alive if only to have something to grab ratings. Today's press has no
morals or integrity. The news presenters are only concerned with how good they
look and how much celebrity they receive. You know why I miss Cronkite so
much? He had the investigative instinct of a Bob Woodward but the morals and
integrity of the old school of reporters.
Dave
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>One may well argue that sexual harassment laws are vague and amorphous,
>but I believe the problem there is more in the gender bias of the
>terminology (and the enforcement) than in the crafting of the laws
>themselves. But I think we do a disservice to ourselves, to our
>daughters, and to our daughters' daughters if we trash the system
>rather than perfect it.
>
I sure hope someone perfects it because it is lousy right now. It's like
communism or utopias, they sound great on paper but are warped in practice. I
have a friend who was on the losing end of a false sexual harrasment suit made
by an insecure woman with whom he worked. She ended a relationship and he
wanted an answer as to why. Instead of just giving him the answer, she avoided
him permanently by going to their superiors and claiming he was harassing her.
That's all it takes nowadays. You just have to mention the word and innocent
people may get hurt because others are worried about bad publicity.
>
>I cannot speak for the actual details of the deposition process -- I
>didn't follow them. But I can tell you that evidence of
>prior acts -- evidence that goes to show a modus operandi, for
>example -- may well be legally relevant and admissible. To deny a plaintiff
>the means to prove her case is to pervert the justice system, and a
>President that would ask us to do so is unworthy of the power we've
>entrusted to him.
>
I fully agree with you on this, Shari.
>Why don't you feel bad for Monica? Overweight and needy in a town of
>beautiful people, wanting to be popular, wanting to be loved, disrespected
>and disappointed through high school, finds herself the attention of the
>leader of the free world, buys that she matters (secretaries and secret
>service men make way for her), buys that she matters to him, but
>sabotages her own good fortune because she needs to vindicate herself,
>to show others that she matters, and then finds herself betrayed by
>a friend, betrayed by her lover, betrayed by her political sisters,
>and so on and so forth. Don't you know people like her?
Actually, I do and I avoid them. They are more often than not attention
seekers. Yes, I understand that their past may be a cause for this but what
happened to common sense? Any moron, no matter what age, can see that
mentioning something "secret" to someone else makes the secret no longer
secret. If she truly cared about the relationship, why would she brag about
it? She spilled all to Tripp because Tripp was an audience, a way for her to
get attention. Common sense also dictates that someone in a position of great
power isn't about to give up all that power just because you had sex with him.
Why do mistresses believe this over and over? Granted, Edward abdicated for
Wallace Simpson but I don't believe he much wanted to be king of England
anyway. Monica was in denial, big and bad, all the way through. I don't feel
sorry for her. If she had sex with Joe the insurance salesman, who had a wife
and three kids at home, yeah, I could see a little hope because he doesn't
have a lot to lose if he dumps his wife. But, the President? Please.
>
>I see it as
>a battle for the state of society, for political representation with
>integrity and gender equality. And as long as that's what I'm fighting
>for, both the Dems and the GOP have shown themselves to be potential
>mortal enemies.
>
Oh, don't blame the parties. Blame society. The American public gets the
government it deserves. So long as people remain in their cosy little suburban
houses, sheltered from the rest of the world and any need to interact as a
community, things will only get worse. The pretentious baby boomers have in
office a man who perfectly represents their shallow, self-absorbed lifestyle,
lack-of-morals and all-for-me economic interests. Who says a representative
democracy is dead. He represents the agenda-setting elite to a T.
Dave
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>him - he comes from a poor background, a single mom, a drug addict
>brother, whatever. To me, his problems are our problems.
Hey, I come from a poor background. Ten brothers and sisters, living on a
teachers wages. Philandering father, attention-seeking mother. Two sisters and
two brothers have been drug addicts and alcoholics. Father eventually became
an alcoholic. Would I ever risk anything just for a piece of ass? No. I am
happily married and plan to stay that way. I don't ask anyone to ever excuse
my actions. If I have done something wrong, I accept the responsibility. I
used to deny things, but then I straightened my life out. If Billy Boy needs
compassion and time to deal with his emotional problems, I'm 100% in support
of him doing that, but NOT ON MY TIME.
>He is more
>representative of the America I know than anyone else. He is greatly
>flawed and so are we. We are so self-righteous it's disgusting to me.
No, we are not self-righteous. Some of us just expect a little more from
our friends and from those who serve us. I'd have a hard time being friends
with someone who cheated on his wife and didn't bother to tell her for eight
months. I talked to my mother two days ago about this. As I said above, my Dad
cheated on her. She said to me that there is no way, once she is cheated on
one time (Jennifer Flowers) that a wife doesn't know it is happening again.
Hillary is in this for herself. It's great that she might be doing this to
advance the causes of women but I'd rather she did it by getting herself
elected, as opposed to holding on to her position by faking a marriage. If
Hillary really wanted to strike a blow for women, she'd divorce the loser now
and show battered, abused women out there that no man or position is worth
degrading yourself by staying in a marriage that should have ended long ago.
Let's face it, the first couple are a two attention-seeking, power-needy
emotionally troubled people.
>I grew up poor, around people who were so hungry to do anything to get up
>and out of the poverty. I look at Clinton and see the world I knew. His
>need to please everyone, his need to be the good boy up front but the bad
>boy behind the scenes, forever sabotaging his successes. Doesn't it sound
>familiar? Don't you know people like that? Don't you have a
>relative or a friend who had so much promise but then ruined it all
>in the end? I do. I know that song very well. I was always touched
>and amazed that Clinton rose above it all somehow and became
>President of the United States.
He rose above all what? His lack of integrity and his willingness to hurt
anyone along the way perfectly follows the recipe of today's win-at-any-cost
political game.
>History will not treat this whole situation kindly, believe me. It will be
>viewed as another hysterical moment in a society inclined to hysteria.
Much as history looks back at the Radicals in the 1860's and wonders what
the hell they were thinking when they impeached Johnson. Our Congress will
also be referred to as a bunch of radicals. But people in the future won't
care because it won't affect their day-to-day lives. When was the last time
you thought "Wow, I really am glad we had a president like Johnson in the
1860's. He did so much for our modern economy, our foreign policy, etc...
Clinton and this Congress will be a footnote in history's pages because they
have spent so much time bickering and so little time passing sweeping changes
that will profoundly affect the future of this country.
Dave
Sasha Stone
could come up with as to why I don't hate this man as my President. I
should hate him I guess. But you're right; his childhood doesn't excuse
his crimes.
Sashs
>Sasha Stone wrote:
>
>> Finally, a note on Clinton himself and why I am so loathe to totally blame
>> him - he comes from a poor background, a single mom, a drug addict
>> brother, whatever. To me, his problems are our problems. He is more
>> representative of the America I know than anyone else. He is greatly
>> flawed and so are we. We are so self-righteous it's disgusting to me. I
>> grew up poor, around people who were so hungry to do anything to get up
>> and out of the poverty. I look at Clinton and see the world I knew. His
>> need to please everyone, his need to be the good boy up front but the bad
>> boy behind the scenes, forever sabotaging his successes. Doesn't it sound
>> familiar? Don't you know people like that? Don't you have a
>> relative or a friend who had so much promise but then ruined it all
>> in the end? I do. I know that song very well. I was always touched
>> and amazed that Clinton rose above it all somehow and became
Mark Ashley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussions on all forms of Cinema
> [mailto:CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU]On Behalf Of James Frame
> Sent: 15 September 1998 17:19
> To: CINE...@AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Clinton/Non-Cinema
>
>
> What does lol mean?
>
Jeff Miles
>look and how much celebrity they receive. You know why I miss Cronkite so
>much? He had the investigative instinct of a Bob Woodward but the morals and
>integrity of the old school of reporters.
>
>
> Dave
I need to throw out a question here. Is the media and cinema now
almost the same thing? I'm not trying to debate any answers/excuses given
in the preceeding arguments, but the two almost seem to have become the
same. There no longer seems to be a truth, just different spins when the
ratings go down.
This whole Clinton fiasco is a joke. Anyone who doesn't see that
has an agenda of either "let's get rid of this president", or "I'm bored,
what can we do to liven things up a bit? I know, let's destroy someone
today." Where were all these morals durring the Iran/Contra affair, CIA
putting drugs on the streets of L.A., etc., etc.? My guess is they were
focused on who shot JR, and "Wow, Star Wars is real? So that's where that
3 trillion dollars went."
It seems to me that if the "real" public cared about what Clinton
did with his cock, he'd be out the door already. Instead, I believe the
"people" are smarter then some give them credit and can recognize bullshit
when they see it. I refer to approval ratings here. Same goes for the
past presidents. They did there job (even when it meant breaking the law)
and the public approved. I wonder if Nixon would have actually been
impeached? Probably, those were the days of "who ever's in power, they
must be bad".
I believe "PRIMARY COLORS" shows this very attitude perfectly.
Jeff M