Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Cuthbertson who wrote (14020)	8/22/1998 6:26:00 PM
From: Drew Williams	Respond to of 152472

* OT * (last time this weekend, I swear!) John, Being one of the Baby Boomers for whom Nixon is the Great Satan, I think you need to read a little more history and get a little more perspective. Somehow I find it difficult to equate lying about something that is not illegal (ie consensual extramarital sex) with subverting the electoral process by ordering and covering up multiple breaking and entering (Watergate, Ellsberg's psychiatrist, etc.), bribery, and more. One way of looking at this is to look at the legal punishment for the "crime" being lied about. Consensual extramarital sex normally has no legal penalty, unless we are talking about what would happen in a divorce settlement or if the participants are doing it where it would scare children and small animals. It may be immoral or stupid, but it is not generally illegal. This is a good thing, because more than half of all American men and about a third of all American women have at least one extramarital affair somewhere along the line. We could not afford the jails! One could argue in this case that because President Clinton was Ms Lewinsky's supervisor (I suppose the President is the supervisor of all federal employees) that other rules may apply. My impression, however, is that Ms Lewinsky went to Washington with the specific intent to nab herself one of the rich and powerful using a most old fashioned method. So, while I will not give President Clinton a total pass on this one (it did show incredibly bad judgement) I'm satisfied to let Mrs. Clinton mete out whatever punishment she deems appropriate. Breaking and entering and bribery are, on the other hand, major felonies with significant penalties. Nixon did not merely fail to supervise G. Gordon Liddy (whose picture should be in the encyclopedia next to the definitions of "psychopath" and "loose cannon"), he personally approved his hiring. Nixon wanted that kind of fanatic. (I saw Liddy on TV the other night. He was asked if he had ever killed anyone. Liddy refused to answer, because, he said, there is no statue of limitations on murder.) The list of Nixon's faults is way too long to go into here, but there are lots of good books out there. Woodward & Bernstein's ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN is a good place to start. Oliver Stone's film NIXON is a surprisingly sympathetic look at the man.

To: John Cuthbertson who wrote (14020)	8/23/1998 12:06:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

OT. John, how you characterized what I said: So you're suggesting we should have a system in which defendants in lawsuits can decide whether they need to testify truthfully based on their opinion of the legitimacy of the suit against them? Get serious! No, what I suggested is that to lie when asked a question which is probably not material to the suit in question, and even if it is, barely, is hugely personally prejudical yet would a most shed light on a small wrong..that is not very consequential. I further suggested that such questions as Clinton was asked should be barred as a matter of law from sexual harrassment suits. That is, questions into the prior sexual history of the subject in question. Women are now shielded from such questions in most states, as a result of feminist pressure. Perfectly correctly. They are called the rape shield laws. They generally prohibit all such questions, even if they involve a very similar pattern of alleged behavior. I.e., prior instances of alleged rape. Men on the other hand can be asked about even consensual sexual relationships when accused of sexual harrassment. Well, maybe not. The area is unsettled. The judge ruled the Lewinsky testimony so perriferal to the trial that it should be disallowed, given the logistical trouble it was creating. (Note: this is a fully fair discription of what she did, which few in this controvery ever give you.) Prosecutors almost never go after perjury in civil suits, especially in sexual or personal matters. Civil perjury may be persued when it involves big dollar fraud, for example, and a civil (SEC) proceeding is how it is delt with. I would submit that this civil perjury is much less material than that committed in the majority of divorce actions which go that far. By either or both parties. So immaterial, and so prejudicial that it should not have been allowed to be demanded. So as not to expose the defendant to even the remote possibility of prosecution. That should be the law. And even though it isn't by statute, and is unclear by case law, under these circumstances, it should be utterly unactionable. I personally think Clinton was morally justified in not telling the truth about his affair with Lewinski in the Jones lawsuit. Smart? Well, that all depends on what the Tripp tapes, doesn't it? A substantial portion of our 20th century Presidents were known to have illicit affairs while in the White House. Kennedy, Johnson, Roosevelt, and Harding, in addition to Clinton. That is what we know about, before the press went on a mission, beginning with Gerry Hart. My guess is that most or all of them would have lied in the Paula Jones deposition under the same circumstances and with the same knowledge that Clinton did. Do you really think otherwise??? I don't like or trust extreme moralists. The country has been swept up into an hysteria over this that I think will be very differently evaluated in a few years times. It is a confluence of feminist extremism on politicizing personal sexuality (reflected in the elite media at the moment), and a resurgence among Republicans of the fundamentalist version of that old time religion. (No matter how hypocritical.) I strongly believe, on all available evidence, that the vast majority of politically powerful men, throughout time and across societies, have had plural affairs while in power. Especially if they were powerful while still relatively young and vital. I even think it goes hand in hand with their political attractiveness, generally. Nature of the beast my friend. Nature of the male beast. Christian B.S. or no. Current feminist BS or no. (And on most topics I'm supportive of feminist goals. But not on personal sexual politics. Not at all.) It used to be that responsible, elite journalists, felt that significant segments of the public at large were unreasonably prejudiced about publically revealed sexual pecedillos in pubic leaders, and accordingly didn't report them. Until about 15 years ago. What has happened now is that most (but certainly not all) of the public is a lot less prejudiced than they used to be. Fully approving, absolutely not. But not absolutely condeming either. However, the feminist ideology of politicizing all sexuality has made the journalist and legal elites highly critical and legalistic about such behavior. While the public thinks its all out of proportion. However, don't underestimate the power of propaganda. I think the pubic is being turned around on the "lying to the American public" issue. At least right now. Doug