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.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (7021)	9/26/1998 10:41:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Court Decision Opens the Door For Mandatory Oral-Sex in the Workplace Allentown, PA - Today, judge Norman Parker, ruled that John Boyd was not guilty of sexually harassing his 27 year old secretary, Belinda Johnson, despite the fact that Boyd openly admitted that he told Miss Johnson that if she didn't perform oral-sex on him that she would lose her job. Judge Parker agreed with Boyd's attorney who argued that because President Clinton's definition of "sexual relations" excludes oral-sex, it is not sexual harassment to demand oral-sex from an employee. Said Boyd's attorney, "Oral-sex is not sex. The man who holds the highest office in our country has made that perfectly clear. Therefore, my client cannot possibly be guilty of "sexually" harassing Miss Johnson. If he had demanded that she have intercourse with him, then things would be different." Judge Parker's decision is precedent setting and is expected to have far reaching implications for businesses across the country. Some corporations are already making moves to include oral-sex as part of their secretarial job requirements. Said one executive, "I have already changed the form that I use during my annual employee review. The form now includes a line called 'BJ Performance'." Surprisingly the National Organization for Women (NOW) supports Judge Parker's decision. Olga Lesbomb, spokeswoman for NOW told BNN, "Judge Parker's decision was based on our President's definition of sex. If Clinton says that oral-sex isn't sex then we're not going to argue. Although, there will be some women who won't like this we encourage them to just suck it up and look on the bright side. At least we have a President who has fought to keep women from going back to the dark ages when abortion wasn't legal."

To: dougjn who wrote (7021)	9/26/1998 5:34:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

if you found that to be "utterly, belly achingly, hysterical.", then you must have almost died of laughter seeing Clinton in the GJ video, saying the same things. You laugh now, but it just goes to show what a joke our President is.

To: dougjn who wrote (7021)	9/26/1998 6:29:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Well, I did not find anything "utterly, belly-achingly hysterical" in the pornographer's lament published in Salon Magazine. Perhaps because it reflects too accurately a very depressing state of affairs. Although the public at large claims not to be interested in all the steamy details of l'affaire Lewinsky, in fact there is a huge audience for those details. Just run a net search, using any engine you want, for "Clinton," "Monica Lewinsky," "Paula Jones," "Linda Tripp," "Kenneth Starr," "White House Scandal," & etc., and you will turn up more sites than you could count in a lifetime. A few of them are devoted to examining the issues. Others are strictly partisan ("Get Clinton" vs. "Get Starr"). Others are satirical (plenty of opportunities for satire here!). Still others are of the fan club variety ("Free Susan MacDougal," "Linda Tripp's Home Page"). But the vast majority are simply lewd. Gross-out jokes (check out the ones on SI, for example). Prurient snickering. Endless speculations about who socked it to whom (pardon the expression), and how. As for the professional pornographers, despite the Salon article, they are making out nicely, too. I turned up loads of XXX sites promising goodies like nude photos of Monica. (I didn't open them up for fear of getting on some pornographer's mailing list.) All of these sites predate the publication of the Starr Report. I am not for censoring the web, or anything else. But I find it depressing that so many of our fellow citizens are titillated by the sad story of the President's sex life. And perhaps the best argument for voluntary resignation that I have seen is that no one will be able to look at Bill Clinton any more without imagining him in the act of unzipping his fly. As I have said before: A nation of voyeurs! Ugh! jbe