From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:53:58 GMT

gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.210035.22702@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
>jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs) writes:

>>The current liberal target is the military. Perhaps the strongest conservative
>>organization in the country. They are going to attack our strongest point.
>>Many good men will resign. (Thank you very much Ad. Crowe).

Many good men will join.  There's still a lot of jobs and money there.


>>        1) Gay Rights .... The Liberals will legitimize the homosexual life
>>                style. Homo-sexual marriages will have the same legal status
>>                as tradition male-female marriages. Homo-sexuals will be
>>                able to adopt children and file tax returns joinly. Sex
>>                education in PUBLIC schools will teach gay, lesbian, and
>>                heterosexual techniques.

I think most kids are able to learn all the techniques on their own
(I didn't have a course in it, and I even figured out the gay & lesbian
techniques without ever even using them - the power of abstraction).

I see nothing in the bible against homosexuals filing joint tax
returns.  You must belong to a cult.

>>        This of course will be the end of the traditional family as we
>>        know it.

Yes, of course, when given the possibility of filing a joint tax
return with a homosexual, I will recklessly disown my loving wife
so as to live in fiduciary sin.

>>        By the way how come Mr Clinton is not protecting the
>>        rights of straight men and women to privacy in the military?

It's easy - the ones with outies shower in one bathroom, and the ones
with innies shower in another.  If anyone touches anyone else in
the shower (assuming it's a public shower), they're thrown out.

>>        Why will straight mem and women be forced to undress, shower,
>>        and sleep with people that find them sexually appealing?

I assume you're using "sleep" in the literal and not sexual sense,
and I would say bunk beds are not quite "sleeping with" someone else.
But no, you can't get AIDS from someone breathing, and women have had
to deal with lust-filled idiots for years, and just maybe you can get
used to it.  If you're worried, turn your wanker to the wall or 
shower in your skivvies.  Remember, if they touch you, or even make
advances, they're out anyway.  Most gays look for WILLING partners,
just like most heterosexuals.

>>        2) Womens rights .... The liberals what to give women the right
>>        to choose to go into combat. What about men? Why don't we get
>>        a choice?

>You do, Bozo.  If you don't want to go into combat, don't join.

Actually, that's not a valid rejoinder - the military is a lucrative
employer, and telling someone not to join if they don't like discrimination
is unfair.  On the other hand, the definition of combat positions has
changed vastly, so that much of warfare is fought only by those who
want to be in combat - pilots above all.  There are lots of support
positions, and until we get into a difficult war, most of this talk
is really about the availability of good engingeering jobs, not about
combat.

>>        3) Taxes on the affluent .... Liberals will of course tax all
>>        Americans capable of paying, the only question is how much?

All Americans capable of paying are already paying, the only question
is how much.

>>        Liberals says only people earning $200,000 plus. I don't
>>        believe it, but time will tell. Don't affluent people have a right
>>        to the money they earn?

No.  People have a right to some of the money they earn, and the 
government has a right to some of the money they earn.  The percentages
are negotiable.

>>        4) Access to health care .... Liberals want to make health care
>>        accessible to all, a noble goal, the result with be that America
>>        health care will be like our public schools, our post office.
>>        Everyone will be servered equally poorly.

If you compare our post office with most in the world, it's very
efficient.  A letter from New York to Los Angeles costs 29 cents,
but in Europe would cost around 60 cents (even for shorter distances,
such as within Holland).  My mail almost always arrives within
3 or 4 days, even when I mail from abroad, and mail doesn't seem
to get stolen as easily as in other countries.  Occasionally 
I get a mangled envelope or a bounced letter, but this is definitely
the rarity.  Even parcel rates are good.  Do you judge the post
office from personal experience, or because you heard about it
in a George Bush one-liner?

>>        5) Procecution of Conservitives officals ... Although no one
>>        is talking about it, I fully expect the liberals in power to
>>        procecute presidents Reagan and Bush for thier part in Iran-Contra.

It would be nice, but it doesn't seem too close (it's already been
six years of stone-walling, and Reagan seems to be way out of the
loop at this point).

>>        6) Rewrite History .... Already we are being told that the last
>>        four years was the worst period since the great depression.

And which was?  Have you looked at all the people on the streets lately?

>>It seems that that soon will be no wrong and no right, no common bases for
>>collective mores.

Personally, I feel sound education (not indoctrination) is a wonderful
basis for mores.  Obviously you weren't taught to spell, which is a
shame, and I wonder whether you were left out on other basic concepts
of education, such as diversity of opinions, lifestyles, and the
ability to find your own truths in a moral fashion without having them
dictated to you.  I find more "liberals" get outraged by government
death squads than "conservatives", while "conservatives" condemn
repressive governments such as Cuba more quickly than liberals do.
What's a poor boy to do?  Figure it out for yourself.

Many of the common bases for shared values are artificial in
that they presume a homogenous culture in some aspect of
ethnicity, race, religion, etc.  Suddenly we're faced with
growing our values to include a larger subset of the world's
diversity and possibilities.  Do we rise to the challenge,
or sink into isolation, demagoguery (sp?), and nostalgia.
I don't want the fifties culture and its values, that's
for sure.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh