revisionist history
 

OK, just checking - my current deal definitely has me humor impaired these days.

Then again, a lot of people took bizzare positions on Bill's BJ to cope with their political cognitive dissonance - I recall the stunning silence of women's organizations. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy emerging as the defender of "those poor, poor girls" wouldn't be much of a stretch.

through the looking glass
 

Huh? This is basic "Power and the Penis 101" from ten years of CLE's.

through the looking glass
 

You don't have to go to the adult bookstore to get CLE materials anymore, bilmore. I'm sure your old firm said it was cheaper, but trust me, there's a better way.

through the looking glass
 

You get your credits the way you see fit, and leave me be.

through the looking glass
 

Most companies I represent require executive officers to report intracompany relationships to the board. I have been involved in one such report. Not only is it likely against company policy, but it also shows incredibly bad judgment not to do so. Whether he should be fired for it is another matter.

through the looking glass
 

OK. Sorry. Just to make sure you understand what the rest of us are talking about, though, know that "Boeing" is a big company that makes airplanes, not just a sound effect.

through the looking glass
 

Did anyone else see that news this morning and not think, "I wonder what was really going on." I assumed the board had other reasons to can him, or something, and that this pretext had the advantage of spooking investors less, or something.

through the looking glass
 

Don't do much compliance counseling, do you?

through the looking glass
 

If -- and I really mean if, because your meaning is a little opaque -- you mean to suggest that state or federal law reflects the sort of analysis about consent that you were describing above, then I ask again, so what? That's not why Boeing said it was canning him, so who cares?

through the looking glass
 

More likely is that this allowed them to terminate him for "cause" under his employment agreement.

through the looking glass
 

I was responding to a "why wasn't she fired" comment. I pointed out that the legal evironment currently holds her as a victim, for the reason I set out. You ran with that, as you are wont to do, somewhere else. So, yes, if you took my comment to mean that I believe that Elizabeth Dole invented Zoloft, or some other completely unrelated thing, I hereby acknowledge your merit and correctness.

through the looking glass
 

I guess I wasn't clear what you were talking about, since you appeared to be responding to me, but all I said was that she wasn't his direct report. Perhaps we were both distracted by the outbreak of stupid socks. I thought Burger was asking why she wasn't named, and I assume it's because no one is interested in fucking up her life.

through the looking glass
 

Ships passing in the night.

through the looking glass
 

Given the ambiguity of the reasons for his termination, it's a reasonable question. If the policy is no intra-corporate affairs, why isn't she on the hook? Double standard?

Is the policy "you have to report any affairs if you're in x position" and she either reported it or isn't in x position? Then there's a reason.

Why are they interested in fucking up his life? They'll end up having to settle with him over the inevitable suit over whether the termination was for cause (assuming he hasn't settled already).

Didn't anyone see that terrible movie with michael douglas and demi moore?

through the looking glass
 

What f'ed up is because they are keeping her ID secret, we can't see photos. Did this pass the Victoria Principal principle? We may never know.