[Vision2020] Revisionist Workplace rules: Sexual harassment=sex

Ted Moffett ted_moffett@hotmail.com
Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:52:47 +0000


Tim wrote:

> > >>    So for one last time, Folks, when Bill
> > committed
> > >>perjury, he was NOT LYING ABOUT SEX or being a
> > serial
> > >>adulterer he was lying in a deposition after he
> > had
> > >>been named as the defendant in a SEXUAL HARASSMENT
> > >>SUIT. > they
> > >>said it was JUST ABOUT SEX.
> > >>


If I understand you correctly, in the above comment you are linking the 
statement that Clinton was "lying about sex" to the Paula Jones case, 
asserting that this statement "Clinton's lies were just about sex," applies 
to his conduct in the Paula Jones case, and is therefore inaccurate, because 
lying about sexual harassment is more serious than "just lying about sex."  
But in fact any lies Clinton told in this matter were only verified in the 
Lewinsky case, as far as I know, in which case the statement that Clinton 
was "just lying about sex" is correct, and so therefore does not indicate a 
hypocritical attitude.  Lewinsky was a willing partner in consensual conduct 
between adults.

Concerning your claim that some Democrats were not as fervent a defender of 
women's rights as their feminist ideology should inspire in how they viewed 
the Paula Jones case, I think you are right. There is no big news in this 
revelation.  Republicans are not now going after Bush for his "lies" with 
the same fervor they went after Clinton for his.  If they were consistent 
fervent defenders of presidential integrity, Bush would be under tremendous 
fire from most Republicans, but he is not, of course.  But again, this is 
just what is to be expected based on partisan loyalty.

My focus was on the comment you made about Clinton's lies.  In the case of 
Lewinsky, lies were admitted and they were "just about sex" between 
consenting adults.  So the people making this statement "Clinton's lies were 
just about sex." are not being hypocritical, even if they are defenders of 
women's rights.  In the Paula Jones case, the facts were never proven 
sufficiently, as far as I can discern, to state conclusively who was lying, 
or if sexual harassment ever took place.  Clinton's lies concerning Paula 
Jones are speculation.

I hope this clarifies my point.

Ted

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail