In an essay for Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky complained, among other things, that she was consistently refused jobs, despite her qualifications, which include a masters degree, due to her notoriety. Though I have no doubt that that is true, and I am nothing but sympathetic to her and the way she was slut-shamed by American Puritans, it’s worth pointing out that many qualified workers are unable to find appropriate work.
Monica Joins the Underemployment Club
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
13 Comments. Leave new
Absolutely, she’s just another bit of roadkill on the political highway. The GOPranos don’t care who gets hurt so long as they get their grubby paws on the power. They spent millions of dollars and effectively shut down congress over a fucking blowjob. (While complaining about government waste & spending out the other ends of their alimentary canals.)
The supposed reason for puritanism is to *protect* the wimminz and chillunz. Like most of their nonsense, they bring about the exact problems they’re ostensibly protecting us against.
I ditched a bunch of my pot smoking buddies when they became too concerned over this nonsense. I still shake my head when I remember how they went on and on about how Clinton shuold be inpeached.
Well, I did say that Clinton should be impeached. At the time. Because he lied under oath, and as the President of the United States, he should not have done so. So, since he obviously had an open relationship with his wife, there was no logical reason to lie.
I am amazed at how many Americans, including Congresscritters, have no idea what ‘impeachment’ means.
If a majority in the House thinks there is probable cause, they can REQUEST that the Senate investigate. This is what is meant by ‘impeachment’. But both historical US impeachments of presidents DEMANDED the removal of the President from office, which the House cannot do.If the Senators reject the impeachment, if they do not think the charges justify any punitive action against the President, they should refuse to hear the case. But in 1999, a majority of Senators voted to accept the impeachment of Clinton and hold a trial, when most planned to vote against conviction no matter what. Again, this is NOT what the Constitution says. The Senate should have refused to investigate on the grounds that, in the opinion of the US Senate, the crime of which Clinton was accused was neither a High Crime nor a Misdemeanor. But, while already certain they would vote to find Clinton ‘Not Guilty’, more than half the Senators voted to hold the trial.
@ Ted Rall –
“Because he lied under oath….”
.
President Clinton did not “lie” about the matter – he denied having “sexual relations with that woman.”
.
It depends upon what your definition of “is” is.
😀
He lied during his deposition under oath.
@ michaelwme –
Thank you for clarifying “impeachment”! It is downright frustrating to hear people misusing the term, when what they actually mean is “removal from office.”
.
President Clinton WAS impeached. The majority of the Senate found him “Not Guilty.” That should have sufficed.
@ Ted Rall –
Tell me more.
Exactly what are you referring to?
@ mhenriday –
I agree that employment opportunities are rare in the U.S.
.
With a Bachelor’s Degree (in English & French) I had difficulty landing a job anywhere other than teaching – which didn’t (doesn’t) pay well for the investment made.
.
Lewinsky’s position is unique in that, had it not been for her notoriety, she probably could have found employment suitable to her academic qualifications. But – as the saying goes – she made her bed and now must lie in it.
.
Have I written this with too many innuendos?
😀 😀 😀
Sad to see that a majority of posters to this thread, including, to my surprise, Ted himself, seem to find what Mr Clinton and Ms Lewinsky did in the Oval Office and whether or no Mr Clinton lied about it the main issue here. I understood the cartoon rather to be about the difficulties people with post-graduate degrees have in finding a job which matches their training. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood ?…
Henri
@ mhenriday –
Monica Lewinsky wouldn’t be in the news today (nor mentioned in Ted’s cartoon) were it not for “Vanity Fair” – and her mention of burying the “blue dress.” It’s all relevant. 🙂
Derlehrer, I understand that it was the «Vanity Fair» article which provided Ted with the inflatus divinitus, but as I understand the cartoon, it’s message is precisely that Ms Lewinsky’s fate as a person with a post-graduate education who cannot find a qualified job is hardly unique. That is certainly the case, not least among academics in the so-called «humanities», and what occurred between Mr Clinton and Ms Lewinsky on that fateful day in the Oval Office and whether Mr Clinton lied about the encounter have, to my limited mind, very little to do with the larger issue. Had I understood the cartoon to be about that star-crossed pair, I’d never have bothered to comment….
Henri
Here in Stockholm, Ted, it used to be said that there were more PhDs sorting letters at Stockholm Ban, where post for the whole country was sorted, than there were at Uni (I managed to escape both). The place was torn down more than 30 years ago when a new, more highly automated terminal came on line ; wonder what the overqualified do for jobs these days ? Sit on blankets outside supermarkets and compete for the pickings with Roma from Romania ?…
Henri