SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Ask John Galt... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ignacio Mosqueira who wrote (3602)2/9/1998 11:06:00 AM
From: Janice Shell  Respond to of 4006
 
Yes, they're indeed laughing over here. And scratching their heads. They don't really understand why a head of state (or anyone else, for that matter) should be required to divulge the details of his private life simply because a woman he allegedly propositioned years ago wants two million bucks to restore her allegedly tarnished reputation. The "sexual harassment" angle of the case is in my view bizarre. Jones doesn't claim either that he forced himself on her or that she lost her job because of her refusal to have it off with him. Oh no. She claims that OTHER WOMEN, who presumably did not say no, had greater career success than she did. Bingo. "Harassment". This has gone WAY too far. Favoritism may be "unfair", but then life is unfair, and try as we Americans might, not every last detail of "fairness" can be legislated.

And yes of course there's always been sex in the workplace and there always will be. That is, after all, where we meet most of the people we come to know. Just imagine if Ruth had felt about Boaz the way Jones purports to feel about Clinton. And R&B were RELATIVES, for heaven's sake! Today she'd sue: harassment, hostile work environment, improper suggestions made. And so much for the House of David.

As for Cicciolina, she's no longer a member of Parliament; the fad for porno queen politicians has faded. She's divorced from Koons as well; back to making flicks, I think.