Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

From Jan Bridge

Author:Dave Winer
Posted:12/15/1998; 10:44:11 AM
Topic:DaveNet comments
Msg #:1238 (In response to 1213)
Prev/Next:1237 / 1239

From Jan Bridge, jsbridge@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us:

Dear Dave,

My husband reads your page frequently, and back in late summer/early fall he emailed me a copy of your comments concerning keeping Clinton. I was on that day where you are today, and I was angry that you did not see the implications that were so wide before me.

I am a 53 year old woman. In my first job, waitresses who allowed the boss to "feel them up" and flirted back, were assigned the most lucrative tables. I, on the other hand, did very well by providing excellent service at the tables which did not tip has heavily.

In college I took a course with Elaine. I sat in the second row, wore jeans and sweatshirts, and studied hard. Elaine sat in the first row, wore scoop-necked blouses over ample bossoms, and short skits and didn't bother studying. Elaine and I both received B's in the class, she was incensed that hers wasn't an A. I knew I had earned my B.

After college, I chose teaching as a career. A friend went into advertising. Sheila was one of the most creative people I knew but she learned quickly that progress in the business meant a willingness to "assume the position" on your knees in front of the boss's zipper.

In an essay for the New York Times, Anita Hill defended Clinton because the sex in this incident was consentual. Sexual harassment can mean "un-wanted advances" as was claimed in the Thomas case. But inappropriate sexual activity within the workplace takes on many many different faces. Imagine if you will what it was like for Secretary Betty Curry, who had achieved the highest office in her profession, to go to work each day knowing that her job depended on her willingness to be complict in acts that she herself found reprehensible. Imagine her turmoil and her effectiveness.

But more than ever I believe Clinton must be impeached and must be tried before the Senate and removed from office because of the message his perjury gives to the everyday adult. Our 20 year old son is a college student. Recently an acquaintence was charged with possession of drug periphenalia. A search of his room turned up a pot pipe. My son believes that the kid owns the pipe and probably has used it but my son is encouraging this fellow student to argue that because no one saw him use it; and because his room was unlocked for a period of time before it was searched, that someone else may have "framed him". Does this sound like "Clinton-ethics" applied to real life?

I urge you to continue to call for the removal from office

Jan Bridge

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:46:35 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.