HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
X-Xxdate: Mon, 28 Dec 92 08:56:02 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:59:48 GMT

In article <BzwA2D.BGB@ns1.nodak.edu> Brad Green, green@plains.NoDak.edu
writes:
>It seems a bunch of female leaders (the head of the YWCA seemed to be the
>spokesperson) got together with Vernon Jordan to voice "their concerns",
>and came out of the meeting smiling.  Next day, Clint appoints a woman
>Attorney General.  Nice coincidence.  The response to pressure from
>"special interest groups" seemed to me (note: personal opinion) to be
nothing
>more than window dressing.

Note from the Logic Police: Since you cannot prove that he wasn't already
about to appoint this particular woman to Attorney General before the
brouhaha, this is speculation not a conclusion. Indeed, the disgruntled
women could have been told at the meeting who had been chosen. This 
would explain their amiable demeanor afterwards just as well as this
speculation that they had managed to get Clinton to knuckle-under.

>The very fact that Clinton says he's "against
>quotas" and then says his cabinet will refelect America, shows there is a
>quota system.

Another correction from the Logic Police: There are 250 million people
in this country (maybe more). There are probably hundreds of emminently
qualified individuals for each of Clinton's cabinet positions who
represent
every minority group and both sexes. This means that you can make
excellent
appointments and still make your cabinet "look like America". The quota
system, as is implied here and in the media, suggests that appointments
be made to less qualified individuals in order to give representation to
minorities and women. Since Clinton's cabinet, by the admission of even
his staunchest critics, is knowledgable and capable, this does not fit in
with the definition of a quota system being put forth.

>A person truely going out to get the best people for the job
>cannot sit back and state the makeup will be representative of anything,
>except the best people for the job.

Again, this is illogical given the size of the pool he has to choose from.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:42:12 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec24.215236.14199@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>It seems that a couple of women who appeared on some talk shows
>representing a couple of women's groups did the loud complaining.
>(I'm sorry, I can't remember the names)
>But, most of the women's groups distanced themselves from these 
>remarks.

Well, how about harriett Woods and Eleanor Squeal?  They seem to be pretty high
up in the liberal woman's groups to me.

>Besides accusing "some women, of some groups" (his words) of being
>bean counters, he also made a VERY important point. That the women
>doing the complaining, are overlooking an important thing, that the 
>numbers aren't the only important thing.  The important thing, is how
>much real power and input the women have in the administration,
>rather than being "token" apointments.  This would be a major step
>forward from the tokenism of the past.  I don't think he gained many 
>points at all with the media actually, as usual the media hears what they
>want to hear.  Even though he denied that he was being pressured by 
>interest groups, the media still reported "Clinton appointed a woman
>to the Energy post because of pressure" and "Clinton says he's against
>quotas, but curiously says 4 women will be in the cabinet". 

It seems a bunch of female leaders (the head of the YWCA seemed to be the
spokesperson) got together with Vernon Jordan to voice "their concerns",
and came out of the meeting smiling.  Next day, Clint appoints a woman
Attorney General.  Nice coincidence.  The response to pressure from
"special interest groups" seemed to me (note: personal opinion) to be nothing
more than window dressing.  The very fact that Clinton says he's "against
quotas" and then says his cabinet will refelect America, shows there is a
quota system.  A person truely going out to get the best people for the job
cannot sit back and state the makeup will be representative of anything,
except the best people for the job.
From: Steve Freedkin <sfreedkin@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:28 PST
Subject: Re: Double standard
Nf-ID: #R:BzG097.Iz2@ns1.nodak.edu:2052717492:cdp:1588800077:000:143
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sfreedkin    Dec 27 01:28:00 1992


Folks, it's spelled Lloyd B-E-N-T-S-E-N.  Nobody's perfect:  I'm the guy who
misspelled "Bruce Babbitt" in a fax to Clinton a couple days ago.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19215 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10877 alt.president.clinton:1294
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:27:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
: 
:     I'm not convinced that this can be a simple matter of assigning blame 
: or making excuses. Passing judgement on historical figures is bound to go 
: on for as long as there are people studying history, but the subject will 
: always boil down to this: there isn't a single square foot of occupied land 
: anywhere on this planet that hasn't been conquered or changed hands in one 
: way or another during the past 4,000 years. Each new empire is built on 
: the foundations of those which came before it. 
: 
:     I would certainly agree with you if you want to make the point that 
: Europeans have been brutal and  efficient conquerors, but I'm not prepared 
: on that basis to return everything we have to the previous occupants who 
: were brutal and efficient conquerors in their own time. Once you open that 
: can of worms you're not going to reach an end until you run out of recorded 
: history from which conquerors and their victims can be identified.
: 
: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

Agreed.  I do believe, however, that it's important to view our 
own history honestly.  While the Columbus trial most likely was
not an objective inquiry (and again, I know absolutely nothing
about it), it could have the desirable result of getting more
people to check out the record for themselves.

Bill
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: A Few Thoughts About Clinton
Date: 21 Dec 92 09:49:00 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Greetings!

It's interesting to note that Clinton has enforced alot of what Perot was
complaining about...namely rules on the foreign lobbyists for starters.
I think Clinton at least agreed with what Perot said for the most part.
We'll see how long it lasts.  I do have a glimmer of hope that Clinton
still feels like he is 'a public servant' to the people as opposed to 
American royalty like Reagon and his bunch.  It won't be easy to get
rid of the greed and abuse of money in DC.

I have been paying attention to Clinton's clothing since the election began.
I notice that Clinton doesn't wear cuff links and still has his CASIO watch
on.  However, since he has won the election he HAS changed (upgraded) his
shoes.  I wonder how long it will take for him to settle into the life of
the wealthy, leaving behind the rest of us humans.

When you see the watch change, and the addition of cuff links....then IMO
he's gone to the other side.

My favorite pics of the cabinet so far:

I love Henry Cisneros.  He is a wonderful man...even though, like so many,
he 'erred' in his ways at least once.  But he is truly a gifted speaker,
very intelligent, well read, and for once, the Hispanic community has
someone that 'speaks their language' in a national position.
He was supposedly an excellent mayor for San Antonio (I lived in Austin
then, so I heard 2nd hand about his contributions).  If you have ever been
to San Antonio, he is responsible for most of the wonderful city improvements,
like the riverwalk, and the convention areas.  He is an inspired person.

Also, I highly approve of Lloyd Bentson.  It's too bad that Texas will lose
him as a senator, but he is very powerful, and should really help Clinton
with his credibility in Congress.

-Pamela Cho-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19018 alt.politics.bush:14851 alt.politics.homosexuality:8327 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10596
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Where are the Prawns?)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:25:00
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
Distribution: usa
	<1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Dec17.162102.22240@seq.uncwil.edu>
	<1992Dec17.202942.21376@anasazi.com>
	<1992Dec19.155158.27487@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
	<schlegel.724794384@cwis>
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu's message of Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:46:24 GMT

In article <schlegel.724794384@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:

   Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: smaug.West.Sun.COM!west.West.Sun.COM!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.unomaha.edu!cwis!schlegel
   From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
   Sender: news@news.unomaha.edu (UNO Network News Server)
   Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
   References: <00964F02.484AF800@vms.csd.mu.edu> <1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <1992Dec17.162102.22240@seq.uncwil.edu> <1992Dec17.202942.21376@anasazi.com> <1992Dec19.155158.27487@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
   Distribution: usa
   Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:46:24 GMT
   Lines: 32
   Xref: smaug.West.Sun.COM alt.politics.clinton:19259 alt.politics.bush:15015 alt.politics.homosexuality:6687 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:2625

   keb3_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Karin E. Baker) writes:

	[ . . . ]

    This is the common homosexual lobby argument "the gays in the army are 
    professionals and will restraint themselves and those that don't will just
    be reprimanded by the military courts".  But the point is that we don't
    allow the women and men to shower together in the military EVEN if they
    restraint themselves, because this situation is seen as harrassment in 
    itself because of leering, staring, etc.

    But the gay lobby thinks that as long nothing physical occurs, no harrassment
    has occurred.

You certainly can find injustice if you look for it, can't you?  Has
anyone looked into the experience of other countries' militaries in
which gays are allowed?  For ex., Israel?  Are there terrible problems
of gays harassing non-gay Israeli soldiers?  I doubt it.  Relax.  Take
a stress pill.

John C








Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:04:57 GMT

In article <1327@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>I didn't Jeff?  Here let me try again...
>
>I don't find ANY of his appointments suitable, not one.

Poor Mr. Galvanek.  None of the Clinton cabinet are members
of the John Birch Society!  What a scandal!

I'll say it again:  many, though not all of Clinton's appointments
have drawn wide praise from Republicans and Democrats alike.  
Bruce Babbitt, for example, gets high marks from almost all
conservation groups.

Mr. Galvanek is presumably enamored of the Reagan/Bush cabinet.
Please explain why Bruce Babbitt is a worse appointment
than Manuel Lujan or James Watt.  (This should be good!)

>And exactly why do you think only Democrats are suitable.  Both Reagan 
>and Bush had Democrats in their administrations, isn't Bill at least
>as open minded?

Poor Mr. Galvanek.  He cannot even grant the right of a Democratic
president to choose a cabinet that is largely Democratic.  There
is nothing worse than a sore loser.

Perhaps if Mr. Galvanek would just *attempt* to read what is posted,
he would have seen that Clinton *did* attempt to recruit Republicans.
At least one turned him down.  It's hard to have the other side at
your party if they won't even open the invitation, now, isn't it?

I notice you have not been able to answer my challenge:  name two
Democrats that you would have preferred in the cabinet.  Briefly
describe their expertise and what makes them suitable for the job.
This is the third time I've issued this challenge, but no one seems
up to the task.  I guess it's a lot easier to whine than provide
a solution.

>
>No one said Billary doesn't know how to play politics, it's abundantly clear
>he does.  What he can't see to do though is keep his promises,  
>or tell the truth.

Of course, if Clinton had appointed all white males, Mr. Galvanek
would again have accused him of not "tell[ing] the truth".  Mr.
Clinton can't win.

>The ivory tower
>is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 

With this pathetic kind of analysis, I'm surprised Pat Buchanan isn't
scared you'll take his job.

Jeff
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:09:41 GMT

In article <1704@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>
>It wasn't just ignorance; the Spanish (and the English, for that
>matter) killed quite a few Indians on purpose, and enslaved many
>more, and in fact, smallpox was often used as a weapon.  The extent
>of the deliberate massacres has been exagerated, but the fact
>remains that the Spanish conquest of Central and South America was
>extremely brutal.
>And yes, many of the native inhabitants were just as brutal; why
>that is often seen as an excuse for the Europeans is beyond me.
>

Most of the "Indians" died from disease, and this would have been
the case whether the Spanish and the English had been good or evil.

Europeans brought worse diseases with them than Americans could
give back (except perhaps for syphilis...which may have gone in the
reverse direction)...and this would have decimate (literally) the
indigenous North American population regardless of the state of
enlightenment of European behavior.  The European conquest of 
America was primarily because Europeans carried nastier diseases.

Gerald

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19233 alt.rush-limbaugh:12493 alt.president.clinton:1298
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:42:39 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

In article <C0145J.3HM@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>In article <BzqsBM.CGs@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Can someone explain how Slick's Cabinet is going to be more diverse than
>>Bush's?
>
>Just look at the appointments:  more women, black, and Hispanic appointments
>than in any previous administration.  And his appointments have the unusual
>merit of being qualified for their jobs.  Frankly, it would be harder to
>do worse than Reagan-Bush:  Lujan, James Watt, James Edwards [a South
>Carolina dentist appointed to head the Energy Department].

Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
monolithic in their wants and desires.

If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
whether Clinton has accomplished this task.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: PC lives
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:28:18 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec22.201041.6710@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>So how do you explain Clinton ONLY considering a woman for EPA
>>director?
>	Did you wiretap his office(s) and find out what went on?

Say, would you accept Slick's word for it?  This is what he said in a news
conference yesterday.

>How do you explain Clinton ONLY considering Donna Shalala for
>>her job?  (Other than Donna being a longtime, close friend of Hillary's.)
>	Maybe she's well qualified, for all we know.

Maybe she is.  But to only consider ONE person for a job, without looking
at the qualifications of others?  Looks like a quota to me - a Hillary
quota.

>	In these two cases, would only Phyllis Schlafly make you happy?

How about the BEST QUALIFIED person for the job.  How do you find that one
person, if you only accept looking at one person?

>	One may ask whether or not it was fair, but what would _you_
>prefer? The attitude that the only good Indian is a dead Indian?

The move to condemn Columbus was a politically correct way of blaming 
someone, especially someone held in high regard by white America, for
the plight of the natives.  Typical PC in the sense that you look for
someone else to blame for all your problems.  It's kind of like blaming
Custer for attacks against the Lakota, when the Lakota did exactly the
same thing Custer did to obtain their land in the first place.  The Lakota
were not native to the Dakotas, they took the land from other tribes.

>	Who would _you_ prefer to honor? The founder(s) of the Ku Klux Klan?

Dumb comeback, IS Martin Luther King Jr. the greatest American to have ever
lived?  Honor him, yes, but allow him to be the ONLY person to have their
own private holiday?  PC lives.

>	Nothing I can't stand more than whining from someone who's
>belligerently aggressive.

Huh?  Explain belligerently aggressive.  Or is that something like the
KKK reference - nothing of value to offer, so you use a throwaway line?


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19152 alt.rush-limbaugh:12344 alt.president.clinton:1275
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: PC lives
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:25:28 GMT

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>: PC is alive and well, don't believe otherwise.       

>Mock trial of Christopher Columbus?  Well, that certainly has a 
>PC ring to it.  Did the "trial" do some harm that you know of?

    To the extent that it is an attempt to revise history, I believe that 
it does a disservice to anyone who buys into the revised version of history.

>Was it not merely an attention-getting ploy/historical inquiry?

    It was certainly an attention-getting ploy, but as far as historical 
inquiry is concerned, I'm not convinced.

>Is Columbus, for some reason, off-limits to critics?  

    No, however I believe that native American advocates will lose  
credibility if they attempt to blame Colombus for things which were 
beyond his control.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson, xt-dL)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Double standard
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:28:35 GMT
Reply-To: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 15036@novell.com, bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <BzH0o2.GMI@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>>Rumblings I've heard suggest that the Senate (including many democrats)
>>will fight the confirmation of Benson. I understand he's respected, but
>>not thought of very highly.
>
>Respected == thought of highly.  Is he or isn't he respected?
>
Respected does not mean thought of highly.  I am reading a history
of the Civil War.  Many generals respected their enemies abilities,
but did not think highly of the opponent himself.

Derek
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:47:56 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>In article <C0145J.3HM@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:

>Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
>confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
>mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
>monolithic in their wants and desires.

Considering it was Clinton who originally used the bean counter phrase,
I don't think he has a blind spot on this at all.

>If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
>say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
>is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
>whether Clinton has accomplished this task.

We're moving into the 21st Century.  Yes/No, Black/White thinking is
phasing out.  These days we balance considerations.  If part of the
purpose of the cabinet is to give a sign to America that minority
interests are represented as well, then that element has to be figured
into the appointment process.  Some might say that intellectual ability
by itself should be the only qualifying factor.  Traditionally money
and connections are important as well.  Now, race and gender are
significant.  Welcome to this year's politics.

-- 
{{{{ 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.politics.clinton