Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

. Last Updated: 07/27/2016

MAILBOX: Jones and Lewinsky Weren't Innocent 'Victims'

In response to "Russia Pities Clinton -- Not Jones?" Aug. 19:


In yesterday's editorial you mildly reprimanded the Russians for sympathizing with Bill Clinton, not with his poor victims -- the young, helpless and underpaid Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones. I will try to clear up our position.

On one hand, American society steadily claims women are absolutely equal with men in all aspects, strong and independent. On the other hand, [it] treats women as helpless babies needing permanent protection. Does it not seem contradictory?

I think a grown woman is able to respond and stand up for herself without outside interference. It is a man's right to make propositions and a woman's right to accept or reject them. No one can have sex with a woman against her own will (I'm not talking about rape, which is quite another story).

It looks like the American public opinion automatically regards a man as a wolf and a woman as a lamb. Reality is much more complicated. If the Americans hear about some boss sleeping with his secretary, they undoubtedly imagine a ruthless feudal [boss] oppressing a helpless creature. Why not think about a smart little beast seducing a powerful man in order to solve her career problems?

Bill Clinton did not use his droit de seigneur over Lewinsky. He was almost literally raped by this excited girl, who behaved herself absolutely indecently from her very first day in the White House. As a result, Clinton lost his reputation, and Lewinsky earned $5 million for the unwritten book. So who is a hunter and who is a victim?

As for Paula Jones, I would ask her only one question: If Clinton really hurt her feelings and violated her rights, why did she keep silent for several years and start accusing him only after he became president and she met an opportunity to make money and publicity out of that case? ...

I wonder why, as they criticized Clinton, nobody said a single word about Monica's and Paula's moral standards?

Artem Kretchetnikov,


Privacy Violation


It is interesting that President Clinton's opponents seem so obsessed with what he has been doing in his "private life." Many U.S. presidents like other world leaders have had experiences that are not considered good in terms of marital stability. That is, if they were married.

So, as one American put it, "we didn't elect a Pope -- we elected a president." It seemed that somehow it was normal for the president to be human and not be radically condemned for being human.

It is hard to imagine that any leader who was followed for almost six years by a team trying to watch every movement would not come up with something [that would be] foreign to American society. The whole business of spying on citizens like the president or any other citizen ... has gotten worse over the years.

When the president remarked in his short speech that "even presidents need privacy" he was speaking for all people. And America did not elect a Pope. But had they done that, the Pope would have wanted his privacy too.

Dave Adams

Wolves Needed in Niche

In response to "Russia to Kill 15,000 Wolves as Part of Cull," Aug 15:


The Agriculture Ministry and the department of wildlife conservation are planning to poison 15,000 wolves in Russia this year alone; this is hardly conservation!Such a mass poisoning is not only inhumane, it is also a bad idea for there will most likely be a boost in the rat population as a result. This type of slash and burn approach to "conservation" has happened before. During [China's] Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong had a similar policy with regard to sparrows. As a result of the massive campaign to kill sparrows, the crops were infested with insects.

Please pressure the government to reconsider this inhumane and foolish policy.

Sheila Bitts