Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:11:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?

> Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:41:48 -0500
> From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
> To:           "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020>
>
> Hi, y'all:
> Carl wrote:
> >   I was just wondering why the Liberals are not accepting Packwood's
> >apology.  He does seem to be sorry for what he has done and even seems
> >willing to be rehabilitated.  Isn't that the Liberal message for criminals?
> >Don't blame the person, blame the social enviroment and try to rehabilitate
> >the criminal to function in society as a productive individual.  I guess if
> >Packwood killed somebody then it would be allright, but harrassment is worse
> >isn't it?  Besides, everyone knows that dirty ol' white men can't be
> >rehabilitated.
>
> Note:  as I wrote this, I realized I was writing as though Packwood *had*,
> in fact, committed sexual harrassment.  So y'all should read "alleged" into
> many of the spaces between words, ok?
>
> I'm not a Liberal, so maybe I shouldn't answer this :)  But here are a few
> thoughts.  First, why not accept his apology?  Well, I haven't heard him
> apologize for sexually harrassing anyone.  I *have* heard him say something
> to the effect of "gee, if I did something that upset someone, then I'm
> sorry."  That's hardly the same thing as recognizing that he did something
> wrong, admitting it, and moving on from there.

   Kerry, I bet you that one of the three networks provided you with those
   tidbits.  They have a way of splicing and dicing things to come out the
   way they want.  If you don't believe that then take a TV production course.
   Anyways, I saw his press conference live on C-Span and he said that he
   regretted his behavior and that it was not appropiate and that he was
   sorry.  He also said he did not know if there was any type of program
   around that he could go to for help, but he was going to check into it.

> Is he willing to be rehabilitated?  I heard he got some treatment for
> alcoholism.  I haven't heard anything about him educating himself about
> sexual harrassment.  I can accept that alcoholism may have facilitated his
> actions -- or made it harder for him to control himself -- but I doubt that
> it caused his behavior.  So I don't see treatment for alcoholism as being
> equivalent to rehabilitation vis-a-vis sexual harrassment.
>
> Should we let him try again?  Not knowing any of the details of the case, I
> can only say that, as a general rule, I'm willing to let him prove himself
> "cured" or rehabilitated, or whatever.  *Then* I could see giving him
> another chance.  Letting him carry on business as usual, though, doesn't
> cut it.

   I think that he should be given a chance as well.  Yet it seems as if NOW
   wants to tar and feather him.  So much for forgiveness to those who ask.
   At least he admitted it and said he was sorry and is going to try to change.
   What NOW should be doing is helping him to recover from past sins and tell
   other men, and women, that too can reconcile themselves by admitting their
   errors and seeking help.  What NOW is presently doing is like someone
   beating up an alcoholic asking for help instead of helping.

> What do y'all think?
> Kerry

Carl---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU