[Vision2020] Revisionist Workplace rules: Sexual harassment=sex

[Bob Hoffmann]

At 08:52 PM 7/16/2003 +0000, Ted Moffett wrote:
>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.

It is my understanding that even Paula Jones' accusations did not meet the 
state definition of sexual harassment.  According to her story, she came 
into his office, he showed her his dingle-dangle, she was taken aback, and 
he said, "OK, I wouldn't want you to do anything that you wouldn't want 
to," and zipped it back up.  Indecent exposure, yes.  But believe it or 
not, this does not necessarily meet the Arkansas definition of sexual 
harassment.  Not as though I care about the details.

With talk of impeachment, let me ask the following about the Jones/Lewinsky 
episodes:
How many Iraqis were killed?
How many American were killed?
How many international treaties were broken?
How did it harm our relations with our allies?
How much money did Clinton stuff into his greedy little pockets, and those 
of his friends, in the process?
How did it endanger the retirement of the common American?
How many social services were cut in the process?
How many more people became homeless?
How many civil rights were abridged?
How much environmental damage was caused?

These are things I care about when selecting and retaining a 
president.  Not as though Clinton had a perfect track record on these 
issues (minus sexual involvement).  But impeach a president on the basis of 
the answers to these questions, not "did a politician lie to a grand jury 
about a sexual matter."

Bob Hoffmann
820 S. Logan St.
Moscow, ID  83843

Tel: 208 883-0642