> From: Brett Lorenzen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Gentry wrote: > > But we don't punish presidents for that, because we essentially hold > them to double standards (i.e., be what we can't be ourselves, but > then > don't tell us when you're not). If lying under oath were punishable, > Bush and Reagan would be sharing a jail cell with Ollie North. > AMEN. Remember Bush's long term out-of-wedlock arrangement, also, which was hushed. > Interesting thing, that being lied to stuff. Gary Hart told the truth > about it . . . didn't do him much good. Barney Frank lied about his > sexuality for years, voters rewarded him for it. Newt Gingrich, > George > Will, Rush Limbaugh and several other conservative family-values > loudmouths have all publicly (and repeatedly) mischaracterized their > mistreatment of their former wives and family, and it's overlooked. > Public is too fickle. > NO, Brett -- the media are selective. For some reason they come down harder on "liberals" than "conservatives" -- I mean, Newt is a snake in the grass and his family values stuff is hot air -- but that isn't being punctured. > >He used his > > >power, the white house, and his staff to hide his lie. Just > remember, if it > > >had been you or I that lied, we would be in jail for purgery. > > Not really true. Of an estimated 80,000 (if I remember the number > right) cases of suspected perjury in civil suits in the US last year, > something like 80 resulted in convictions. The odds of Bill Gates > personally coming over to fix your Windows98 install are probably > better > than going to jail for perjury. > Yes -- CIVIL suit - -big difference from criminal suit. Seems Starr's abuse of his power (and his leaks to reporters) is more "criminal" than "civil" misbehavior. Frankly, I hope the Office of the Special Prosecutor sunsets -- is it next year? I forget, but it's coming up. Either that, or they have to be accountable/follow "normal" rules of evidence ... this crap (including the stuff with Espy) is ridiculous. > I'm interested, though, to see if this has an bearing on privacy > issues > overall, and with respect to the net in particular. Sensitivity > levels > are way up, and there must be a few thousand Drudge wanna-be's out > there > looking at other politicians (and hopefully some of these > holier-than-though reporters, too). Wonder if we've really reached > our > limits, or if the door is just being wedged open . . . > At what point do we want *everyone's* live open to total scrutiny ... privacy is big deal to me. This came up at my going away lunch today -- the clinton thing -- and I must work with a non-representative sample [well I am on the west coast <g>] because most folks thought it was overkill, that there is the double-standard Brett mentions above, they were embarrassed at the face we're portraying to the rest of the western world and wish that the circus would leave so the government could go back to dealing with things like Russia collapsing and Japan's/Asia's economic woes. Kathy Kathy E. Gill Business Process Information Visibility, http://process.ca.boeing.com/ BCAG Process Management, http://bpm.ca.boeing.com/ -- 425.234.2004 Empty pockets never held a man back. Only empty heads and empty hearts can do that. - Norman Vincent Peale Microsoft Exchange: the perfect name for its users' greatest desire! ____________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done directly from our website for all our lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
