Re: Clinton--Why I am Chortling

> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
> 
> There's also the idea popular in some gender feminist circles that the
> imbalance of power in manager-employee relationships makes it impossible
> for genuine consent to be given. Can there be any greater power imbalance
> than the president of the United States and an intern? Where are the
> feminist cries of outrage?

Could be because, at least from what I read in the report and from other
sources, Monica came onto Clinton.  One could make the argument that the
imbalance of power was the other way around ;)

On another note, instead of the report, it may be extremely more
interesting to read:
http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document-9.1.1998.1.html

I can't vouch for the veracity of all of those listed.  Of those
individuals, however, with whom I am familiar by way of the media, it is
accurate - and eerie, to say the least.





***************************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.         |  "If we are all here,
Poughkeepsie, New York          |   then we are not
mailto:lharrison@dueprocess.com |   all there."
http://www.dueprocess.com       |      - old Zen saying
*************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

Careful with your attributions. I don't believe Tim wrote what you said he
did.

As for Monica-Clinton, what appears to be the case doesn't matter in some
ideologies. Can meaningful consent be given with such a power imbalance?

-Declan


On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:

> > On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
> > 
> > There's also the idea popular in some gender feminist circles that the
> > imbalance of power in manager-employee relationships makes it impossible
> > for genuine consent to be given. Can there be any greater power imbalance
> > than the president of the United States and an intern? Where are the
> > feminist cries of outrage?
> 
> Could be because, at least from what I read in the report and from other
> sources, Monica came onto Clinton.  One could make the argument that the
> imbalance of power was the other way around ;)
> 
> On another note, instead of the report, it may be extremely more
> interesting to read:
> http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document-9.1.1998.1.html
> 
> I can't vouch for the veracity of all of those listed.  Of those
> individuals, however, with whom I am familiar by way of the media, it is
> accurate - and eerie, to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***************************************************************************
> Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.         |  "If we are all here,
> Poughkeepsie, New York          |   then we are not
> mailto:lharrison@dueprocess.com |   all there."
> http://www.dueprocess.com       |      - old Zen saying
> *************************************************************************
> 
> DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
>              Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

At 9:24 AM -0700 9/14/98, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:

>I don't see a power imbalance here.  If a young woman in her 20's
>invitingly flashes her thong panties at a man, I don't see how she can be
>portrayed as the victim.  The only way that the issue of power arises is
>that Monica was not overwhelmed by someone in power - she was attracted to
>the power.

I agree, in principle. But, then, I think _most_ so-called sexual
harassment cases are based on an inappropriate use of state power to
intervene in birds and the bees issues.

Of course, the Lewinsky stuff surfaced as a result of a civil action filed
by Paula Jones, claiming Clinton dropped his pants in front of her, invited
her to do things to him, etc., etc., blah blah. Did Jones invite this? Was
she attracted to power? Who knows? This is what the trial was presumably
about. And Clinton lied about the Lewinsky matter, and probably has lied
about a great many other matters.

(IANAL, as a few of you are, but I assumed the Lewinsky stuff was coming in
to support allegations of a pattern of such behaviors. If Jones alone had
made the case, it might have been a "she said, he said" case, but when
strikingly parallel behavior turns up with several other women....)

And did Kathleen Willey invite Clinton to rub up against her and suggest an
afternoon quickie in his office? She claimed on "60 Minutes" not to have
invited his behavior.

I'm as bothered as the next person that a taxpayer-funded prosecutor is
asking questions about sex lives. However, this is what comes of having
"sexual harassment" laws, with "if she said it happened, it _happened_"
standards of proof.

Like I said, I'm chortling. What goes around, come around.

And I'm happy that lying sack of shit of a President may escape being
removed from office. Having him around is a useful reminder, the next best
thing to the useful policy of letting a corpse hang from the gallows for a
couple of months.

--Tim May



(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

>
>[snip the whatever]
>
>Like I said, I'm chortling. What goes around, come around.
>
>And I'm happy that lying sack of shit of a President may escape being
>removed from office. Having him around is a useful reminder, the next best
>thing to the useful policy of letting a corpse hang from the gallows for a
>couple of months.
>
>--Tim May
>
    as much as I think Clinton is a scurrilous excuse for a human being,
    I could not agree with you more.  besides, Al Bore is worse.

    let Clinton hang, pecker and all.

__________________________________________________________________________

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches.... 
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

--
At 12:24 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
> I don't see a power imbalance here.  If a young woman in 
> her 20's invitingly flashes her thong panties at a man, I 
> don't see how she can be portrayed as the victim.  

According to the law applied to normal people, Monica was the
victim.  Also according to the law applied to normal people,
Clinton was required to spill his guts about all of his sex
life, because some women sued him, whereas the women suing
was completely protected against any questions concerning her
sex life.

These laws are flagrantly unjust, but the Democrats introduced
them and applied them.  Feminists supported and continue to
support Clinton precisely because he supported and supports
laws that he flagrantly broke.  If these laws are to be
repealed for politicians, they should be repealed for normal
people as well.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     Bx5t8xgN8K1uoUuifbh23snXHu5I2qNBvzwQk6pb
     4qwHCwWse7ErTTfZyYyUUnpKfLU8yjt0ak2jmSKBA
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

--
At 06:21 AM 9/15/98 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
> > According to the law applied to normal people, Monica was
> > the victim.

At 06:15 PM 9/15/98 -0400, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
> What law?  This was consensual sex. 

Female subordinates have no power to consent under current
civil law, any more than children do.

If a boss has sex with a secretary, he is liable,
irrespective of her consent.

> > Also according to the law applied to normal people, 
> > Clinton was required to spill his guts about all of his
> > sex life, because some woman sued him, whereas the woman
> > suing was completely protected against any questions
> > concerning her sex life.

> Clinton, like anyone else, is required to tell the truth
> when being deposed or testifying in front of a Grand Jury,
> i.e., making any statement under oath.

But there are limits as to what questions he can ask his
accusers, and until recently there were limits as to what
question his accusers could ask him.  The limits have been
abolished for one side, and tightened for the other side.

These laws are flagrantly unjust, but the Democrats
introduced them and applied them.  Feminists supported and
continue to support Clinton precisely because he supported
and supports laws that he flagrantly broke.  If these laws
are to be repealed for politicians, they should be repealed
for normal people as well.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     QB9Z4ortNHgkN9yG7H79cPWyP8aJ14vaNHIzH2mw
     4e/ezaLT9rXZibxZ66vyTVK4/ZHHPiLy3k+K5WHn3
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

> > As for Monica-Clinton, what appears to be the case doesn't matter 
> > in some ideologies. 
> > Can meaningful consent be given with such a power imbalance?

>I don't see a power imbalance here.  If a young woman in her 20's
>invitingly flashes her thong panties at a man, I don't see how she can be
>portrayed as the victim.  The only way that the issue of power arises is
>that Monica was not overwhelmed by someone in power - she was attracted to
>the power.

Obviously you Just Don't Get It.  :-)
The argument tends to be along the lines that if power weren't
so disparate, she wouldn't have to resort to sexual bribery to get 
what she wants, she could just take it, or trade for it as an equal.

>On another but connected note, explain why Monica saved that dress!  I
>found this little tidbit to be the "yuck" factor...

Because, not being totally stupid about Clinton, she thought it might
be convenient to have some evidence around after the fact?
Whether that's for emotional blackmail, or basic blackmail, 
or life insurance, or for convincing Hillary that Bill was hers now, 
or convincing some future publisher that she hadn't made it all up, 
or just because it seemed like it might turn out to be useful in the future,
who knows.  Lots of possibilities.  Or maybe it was just a memento
of a lovely evening :-)  Or of a time when she had the President
wrapped around her little finger.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

--
At 05:57 AM 9/16/98 -0400, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
> A woman who comes on to her male employer and, when he
> accepts her "invitation", cannot turn around and allege:
> "Poor me.  I was a victim.  He is so powerful."  

Yet no one seems to have any problem with this rule being
applied to CEOs, only a problem with it being applied to
presidents. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     2aVP9ftnkz+0wn/kd/N9HGp1JPE41U0bVQsUpt+h
     467+NY0mNvo4pZtKEh4Iv9geyZ8ZmQ3GI4jFYWSxJ
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

At 12:20 AM -0700 9/14/98, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
>>
>> There's also the idea popular in some gender feminist circles that the
>> imbalance of power in manager-employee relationships makes it impossible
>> for genuine consent to be given. Can there be any greater power imbalance
>> than the president of the United States and an intern? Where are the
>> feminist cries of outrage?
>

Just to be clear, I didn't write any of the above that was attributed to
me. Declan wrote it.

I don't even know what a "gender feminist" is.  Some kind of typical
feminazi or feminista screwball, I assume.

--Tim May

(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 06:32 AM 9/14/98 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Careful with your attributions. I don't believe Tim wrote what you said he
>did.

And at 07:31 AM 9/14/98 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>Just to be clear, I didn't write any of the above that was attributed to
>me. Declan wrote it.
>I don't even know what a "gender feminist" is.  Some kind of typical
>feminazi or feminista screwball, I assume.

My mistake.  Sometimes when you're reading a post that's been re-quoted
several times, it gets confusing as to who posted what.

>As for Monica-Clinton, what appears to be the case doesn't matter in some
>ideologies. Can meaningful consent be given with such a power imbalance?
>-Declan

I don't see a power imbalance here.  If a young woman in her 20's
invitingly flashes her thong panties at a man, I don't see how she can be
portrayed as the victim.  The only way that the issue of power arises is
that Monica was not overwhelmed by someone in power - she was attracted to
the power.

On another but connected note, explain why Monica saved that dress!  I
found this little tidbit to be the "yuck" factor...



***********************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.           |    "The key to life:
Poughkeepsie, New York            |     - Get up;
mailto:lharrison@dueprocess.com   |     - Survive;
http://www.dueprocess.com         |     - Go to bed."
***********************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

,,,...On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:

>
>I don't see a power imbalance here.  If a young woman in her 20's
>invitingly flashes her thong panties at a man, I don't see how she can be
>portrayed as the victim.  The only way that the issue of power arises is
>that Monica was not overwhelmed by someone in power - she was attracted to
>the power.
>
    I suspect _you_ can handle the power imbalance. Monica is not exactly
    what I would call a collected, stable example of the female species.

    she was scrambled from her parents divorce, was anxious to be both
    liked and approved, and she told the high school teacher she had
    been babysitter for _and_ rolling (sounds like a Kennedy doesn't it)
    that she was in Washington earning her "knee pads" with Clinton.  

    now, that's an unstable freak who is attracted to father figures 
    (Electra complex, if you will) and absolute power over her.

    I dont think as a woman you can understand the fear a male boss
    feels; even if there is a genuine love interest, you crap in your
    own hat, it will be served up to you some day. or as it is sometimes
    stated: "...dont get your meat where you earn your bread...."

    it doesnt matter whether Monica hiked her dress, or Clinton dropped
    his trou (which is more likely given his track record)

    even if Monica was "a willing, consenting adult", any man in a
    position of power who takes advantage of a star-struck female
    30 years his junior is guilty of an abuse of power (personal) and
    in this case using the position of "The President of the United
    States" as his instrument of power --end of story.
    
    to be a "consensual act", the woman certainly needs to not be
    an emotional disaster --and not be preyed upon by a raging
    psychopath who has no more common sense than a drunken fraternity
    brat who says: "Hi, my name is Bill Clinton, let's fuck!"

>On another but connected note, explain why Monica saved that dress!  I
>found this little tidbit to be the "yuck" factor...
>
    she's sick...  simple as that. apparently she was not exactly
    monogamous; 

    probably saved used prophylactics from the rest of them. 
>
>
    note one of her last snivels to Clinton was that she wanted 
    to do the "horizontal bop" --just once. 

    the whole thing is sick.

    stupid Americans only vote with their wallet.

    the American bread and circus mentality does not care... 

    if the economy had already fallen, they would howl Clinton out of
    office faster than a school principal accused by some mother who 
    misunderstood her 5 year old.

    however, leave the scurrilous bag of camel dung in office; the
    government bogged down and consumed with its own evil is a 
    government which is too preoccupied to maximize the damage they
    are doing to the country and the world. maybe they will leave
    us alone.

    like I said before: leave Clinton alone --Al Bore is worse; and,
    I'll even put up with the bitch over Tipper.

__________________________________________________________________________

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

At 06:21 AM 9/15/98 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
>
>    --
>At 12:24 PM 9/14/98 -0400, Lynne L. Harrison wrote:
>> I don't see a power imbalance here.  If a young woman in 
>> her 20's invitingly flashes her thong panties at a man, I 
>> don't see how she can be portrayed as the victim.  
>
>According to the law applied to normal people, Monica was the
>victim.

What law?  This was consensual sex.  No law was broken.  Judgment and
morality, of course, are different issues.

> Also according to the law applied to normal people,
>Clinton was required to spill his guts about all of his sex
>life, because some women sued him, whereas the women suing
>was completely protected against any questions concerning her
>sex life.

Clinton, like anyone else, is required to tell the truth when being deposed
or testifying in front of a Grand Jury, i.e., making any statement under oath.

>These laws are flagrantly unjust, but the Democrats introduced
>them and applied them.  Feminists supported and continue to
>support Clinton precisely because he supported and supports
>laws that he flagrantly broke.  If these laws are to be
>repealed for politicians, they should be repealed for normal
>people as well.

I'm not in a position to comment because I'm not sure who the major players
were at the time the legislation was enacted.  Generally speaking, when the
president belongs to Party A, the majority of the Legislature belongs to
Party B.

Regarding political parties, I am an NPA (no party affiliation) and can
only vote in general elections.  I made this choice because I do not wish
to be "pigeon-holed" by a label imposed upon me as a result of belonging to
a given political party.  In the same vein, I am unable to speak for
"feminists", "normal people", "politicians", etc.  I speak only for myself. ;)

/end of Monica-Bill thread





***************************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.         |  "If we are all here,
Poughkeepsie, New York          |   then we are not
mailto:lharrison@dueprocess.com |   all there."
http://www.dueprocess.com       |      - old Zen saying
*************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.

At 09:29 PM 9/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Obviously you Just Don't Get It.  :-)
>The argument tends to be along the lines that if power weren't
>so disparate, she wouldn't have to resort to sexual bribery to get 
>what she wants, she could just take it, or trade for it as an equal.
>
>Because, not being totally stupid about Clinton, she thought it might
>be convenient to have some evidence around after the fact?
>Whether that's for emotional blackmail, or basic blackmail, 
>or life insurance, or for convincing Hillary that Bill was hers now, 
>or convincing some future publisher that she hadn't made it all up, 
>or just because it seemed like it might turn out to be useful in the future,
>who knows.  Lots of possibilities.  Or maybe it was just a memento
>of a lovely evening :-)  Or of a time when she had the President
>wrapped around her little finger.


Bill -

I was pointing out that one (male or female) doesn't save such items of
unwashed clothing unless there's a distorted reason for doing so.  Like
you, I can only speculate as to why, but it reflects a premeditation on her
part - which supports my position that she's not a *victim*.

A woman who comes on to her male employer and, when he accepts her
"invitation", cannot turn around and allege: "Poor me.  I was a victim.  He
is so powerful."  I don't give a damn whether her employer was the
President or the chief janitor.  To contend otherwise is to suggest that
*every* woman in an executive position, private or public, slept her way to
get the position because of the initial imbalance of power.  I do not
accept this.

Clinton has chased skirts for most of his adult life (as an article which
was posted points out). As the "chaser", he's used his various positions of
power to his advantage, and I agree wholeheartedly that there's an
imbalance of power when he acted in this manner.

So, my bottom (and final) line is:

1.  Clinton has been a womanizer for most, if not all of his political life;

2.  Monica was not a victim in _this_ scenario;

3.  Clinton is guilty of perjury;

4.  Clinton used his friends to publicly support his lie and publicly
disgraced his daughter (Hillary's been through this before);

5.  My tax money has been spent to publish a report that he engages in
extra-marital sex and lies about it (gee, a real surprise!); and

6.  Even if I "Don't Get It" - Bill damned sure got it, and got it, and got
it... ;)






**********************************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.          |  Never doubt that a small group
Poughkeepsie, New York           |  of citizens can change the world.
mailto:lharrison@dueprocess.com  |  Indeed, it is the only thing that
http://www.dueprocess.com        |  ever has. -- Margaret Mead
**********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER:  I am not your attorney; you are not my client.
             Accordingly, the above is *NOT* legal advice.