HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:15:41 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <nate.801@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
...
>new allegations made in Thomas's confirmation hearings could have been  
>validated within the purview of those hearings. Our system demands that 
>Judge Thomas be considered innocent until proven guilty, and since no 


That is only true if he were on trial. He was not. He was in effect being
considered for a job. One does not have to and should not follow criminal
trail rules in evaluating a candidate fora job.

...

...
>for their failure. I'm a big believer in picking battles which can be waged 
>on the most advantageous terms. Once it was clear that the battle against 
>Clarence Thomas was one which would be waged without real ammunition, I 
>believe the best course would have been to graciously concede and wish Judge 
>Thomas luck in his new job. The extent of wasted time, effort, and emotion 
>which were expended in the failed effort to reject Thomas does not reflect 
>favorably on either the Senate leaders who led the effort or on any of us 
>who supported it.
>
>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

However, the failure of those Senators on the panel to have the slightest
consideration for what sexual harrassement is or for a person making an
allegation of harassement is directly repsonsible for the female population
of teh Senate going from 2 to 6 including one black woman. I consider this
worth all the time and effort that went into the hearings.

I supported the hearings. I am glad that I did. Neither the Democrats or
the Republicans on the committee treated the hearings with an open mind
about finding the truth. The Sentators from both parties stacked the
deck against Anita Hill. IMO

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer





Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Misogyny gay and straight
Keywords: hippocrapy
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:23:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.210755.19666@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.193241.17305@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> >In article <13179@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
> >writes:
> >>3. how often homosexual men in soc.motss insist on childish
> >>insults based on the assumption that women are inferior.  (Like
> >>the example above).
> >
> >What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Vast
> >numbers of heterosexual men are constantly making childish insults
> >based on the notion that women are inferior.  Also based on the notion
> >that homosexuals are inferior.  This is so obvious it is a stereotype.
> 
> I do not see a real correlation between these two paragraphs.

  That is because your Corpus Correlarius was cut out in that lobotomy.
Maybe, someday, they will be able to reverse the damage.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:39:38 GMT

In article <13279@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.053140.18780@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> 
> Not weird.  Absurd, unjust, and wrong.  But not weird.  It's
> what happens when you say that there are no limits to governmental
> authority, as Mr. Hennessy seems to believe.

I've seen reports of people in the Navy getting thrown in the Brig for
six months+ (and subsequently thrown out) for having consensual sex
with officers' wives.

As for his being surprised about the UCMJ banning oral sex, it (the
UCMJ) is posted somewhere in every unit in the military.  I don't know
if it specifies oral sex, but it does mention sodomy.  If you were
caught yanking on yourself in the bathroom in the 40's it could get
you a dishonorable discharge, though this was before the GI Bill of
Rights was passed by Congress and therefore it was before the UCMJ
existed.   === Al Sparks
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.rumors,alt.activism,misc.legal,alt.politics.elections
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 20:36:58 -0500 
From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Bork

I have mixed feelings about Bork. He is obviously very learned and
intelligent. More than that, he was definitely shafted in exactly the
way he complained about. He was asked many uncontroversial textbook
questions (e.g.; the differences between sexual and racial
discrimination under the law) and gave many textbook answers. The
public, knowing very little about the law they live under, was horrified.

On the other hand, the man, while paying lip service to the Bill of
Rights, seems to judge those rights less important than virtually any
competing rights. This view, in effect, repeals them. There was also the
famous Saturday Night Massacre, in which he did what was perfectly
reasonable to someone living in an ivory tower. He outraged the entire
nation in the process. I have no doubt that other decisions of this man
would have similar effect. 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60511 alt.rush-limbaugh:9844 alt.politics.elections:23991 alt.politics.clinton:17313 alt.politics.bush:13925
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:17:08 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
> In article <BxC3Jx.CFE@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> 
> >Decide for yourself. Kristofferson WAS a Rhodes Scholar; so was Clinton.
> >Clinton didn't graduate; he flunked out. I don't know (or care) about
> 
> Rhodes Scholars don't get grades and they don't flunk out. Your
> statement is as illogical as "Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize but he
> flunked out". (Some of the other prize scholarships require the
> recipient to enroll in a degree program, not the Rhodes.)

but you ARE supposed to attend classes. Slick Willie didn't.


> 
> I doubt if you're in contention for one.....

Never claimed to be.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:35:16 GMT

jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>And a week after the confirmation a man named George Bush, whose opinion as
>President was very important, signed a civil rights bill he had previously
>dismissed as a "quota bill." Why? In return for enough Democrat votes to
>put Thomas on the Court. Quid pro quo, as Dr. Lector would say. Even still,
>Thomas barely squeaked over 50% of the votes, essentially a vote of no
>confidence when you consider that confirmees to the Court usually get over
>90 votes.

>The existence of the deal cannot be proven, but you would be a fool to
>characterize the Senate confirmation as any kind of endorsement of
>Thomas' suitability for the Court.

    In that case I am a fool because I delude myself by believing that 
Thomas's confirmation was exactly that - an endorsement by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee saying that Thomas was suitable for the Court. It 
may not be what you and I feel, but it's what they did.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:12:40 GMT

In article <7vrq31d@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu () writes:
>I wish I had such confidence. Then I would know to tell those
>5,983 American men who contracted AIDS (not HIV, AIDS) from
>sex with women that they are, well, just statistical aberrations.



	5983?  Christ, more people died from accidents in home
	fix-it attempts than that.


>Been to Uganda lately? Zaire? How `bout Burma or Thailand?
>The rates of heterosexual AIDS there might open your eyes,
>if not give you a heart.


	My first instinct was to say, "Frankly, I don't give a 
	shit about Zaire or Uganda.  The problems there go much 
	deeper than just HIV or AIDS.  You can only have sympathy
	for any group of people before it evaporates.  The 
	preventative methods _are_ available to them, but they
	either ignore them or nullify them."

	But that's not really fair.  The poverty in the areas
	is obscene, and is probably at the root of many of the
	problems the people who are trying so hard are constantly
	running into.  I wish them luck, but I don't have much hope.

	As for Thailand, the situation there is just plain sad.  
	You can be a laborer or a prostitute.  I can't even address
	Thailand because it's just pitiful.  The difference between
	Thailand and Zaire/Uganda is that a prostitute really
	doesn't have much choice whether birth control is used
	--american ones do, but it's not the same situation--
	and the Z./U. peoples _do_.



>Fair enough. Personally, I don't give a damn about muscular
>dystrophy, or cystic fibrosis, or the problems of premature
>infants, because, well, I'm not at risk for those things.


	I don't have any sympathy for a smoker who gets lung cancer.
	Hell, they _deserve_ a slow and painful death, especially
	the ones who raise their children in a smoke filled house,
	condemning them to an early death--or at least a childhood
	of illnesses coming and going like visitors to a cheap hotel.
	They go around spreading their death to others.

	On the other hand, I have a great deal of sympathy for
	people who get something -- cystic fibrosis is one you mentioned--
	that they coudl do nothing -- NOTHING -- to prevent or stop.

	HIV, in 1992, is the result of action or inaction on the
	part of the person who gets it--unless rape was involved. 
	They are not in the same league as smokers (unless they 
	proceed to sleep around unprotected, without telling
	their partners--which is not unknown) because they 
	made a mistake and it cost them (whereas smokers can
	stop--don't give me sob stories about how HARD it is)
	more than is fair.  They have my sympathy, but I really
	don't have any respect for them.  
-- 
 Robert Stephen Rodgers  ||  rsrodger@wam.umd.edu  || IRC: Yamanari
 --------NeXTmail-preferred!!--------------------------------------
 Snout: O Bottom, thou art chang'd!  What do I see on thee?          
 Bottom: What do you see?  You see an ass-head of your own, do you?  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.veterans
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:44:17 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton's health care plan
 <JASON.92Nov17163853@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>

In article <JASON.92Nov17163853@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov
(Jason Austin) says:
>
>In article <921116212020.2060b14b@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU> RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU
>writes:
>->
>-> Would someone please send me a copy of Clinton's health care plan/proposal?
>-> I have seen it posted before but didn't save it.
>->
>-> Thanks!
>->
>-> Stefan Radloff
>-> University of Tulsa
>-> rse32195@vax1.utulsa.edu
>
>        Don't waste time reading it, since Clinton has already pretty
>much said it isn't going to happen.  He has said that he is putting it
>on hold while he works on reducing the cost of health care.  On hold
>is the political word for dropped.

In fact, this is what Clinton said throughout the campaign.  Every document
that describes his plan says that they will work first to control costs, then
phase in universal coverage.  Of course, conservatives were too busy running
around screaming "socialized medicine" and "price controls" to listen very
carefully.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:07:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.180536.5664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>	(1982-1990)
>> Can you say, "selection bias"??
>
>	Sure I can say it, but it's not meaningful.  We're discussing
>supply-side and Reaganomics.  Which were ineffect from 1982-1990.  Thus the
>selection period.  Now if I wanted to talk Keynesian, I would pick a different
>time frame.

Leaving aside that Reagan *was* Keynesian, I question your selection of
dates.  Why does the period begin in 1982 instead of 1981?  If you're
arguing that 1981 should be attributed to the residual effect of Carter,
then why isn't 1991 attributed to the residual effect of Reagan-Bush?

Or do "bad things" take effect immediately?

-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Trillions" Horne")
Subject:      Re:
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:47:50 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA17469; Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:49:22 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09415; Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:49:20 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3895; Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:52:10 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6959; Sun, 15 Nov 92 14:52:09 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet

From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Deficit Reduction Priority for Clinton
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:04:21 GMT


>        Perhaps we are finally coming to a place in this country at
>which we'll have to decide just what groups in this country are
>expendable. We'll eventually have to write someone off and turn our
>back on them. My guess is that it will be the poor. Spending cuts

            Unfortunately, I expect the defintion of "poor" will
     have to be constantly moved upward. :0

>        In the end, Americans will never generate enough Christian
>Charity and Volunteer Spirit to ease even some of the pains of the
>poor. Bush's thousand points of light never happened. I've stood
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       NOT TRUE.   The "thousand points of light" DID happen.
       They were called the "L.A. Riots".

>        We may well have to get used to seeing the poor, sick and
>starving crowd our streets (At least until we pass tougher laws
>against loitering and panhalding, then they will simply crowd our
>jails). And we may have to step over them and tell ourselves that
>there's nothing we can do to help them. After all, we can't afford it.
>We'll have ourselves to keep afloat.

          Yes. Just imagine.  A 100 Million poor people on the streets,
   gazing on with hunger at MacDonald's with no customers, houses with
   no occupants.  It should be interesting.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60344 sci.econ:8692
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: talk.politics.model-un
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 21:07:12 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

    Still looking for support for the creation of the newsgroup
    talk.politics.model-un.  If you support this, please post to
    news.groups where a discussion is taking place.  If you want
    more info about this, email f36si@cunyvm or
    f36si@cunyvm.cuny.edu.  Peace,
                                  Matt
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60613 alt.politics.elections:24053 alt.politics.clinton:17367 alt.politics.democrats.d:617
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:00:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov16.230855.11796@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:

|>It is on the same island chain and was part of American property. The Midway
|>invasion was going to be used as a staging point to invade the larger
|>Hawaiins. For all intents and purposes, this was a planned invasion of
|>Hawaii. (But we are getting of track)

Sorry, but Midway is not part of the Hawaian chain.  Midway is about as
far from Hawaii as California is.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Misogyny gay and straight
Keywords: hippocrapy
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 19:32:41 GMT

In article <13179@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
writes:

>I never cease to be amazed at how:

>3. how often homosexual men in soc.motss insist on childish
>insults based on the assumption that women are inferior.  (Like
>the example above).

What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Vast
numbers of heterosexual men are constantly making childish insults
based on the notion that women are inferior.  Also based on the notion
that homosexuals are inferior.  This is so obvious it is a stereotype.

But Clayton, in his single minded campaign to prove that
gay = scum, chooses to ignore this.

>Of course, the misogyny of male homosexuals isn't surprising,
>if you simply interpret it as the response of someone filled
>with self-loathing about their efforts to fulfill (at least
>occasionally) a role that the male homosexual regards as "female."

This presumes women are inferior in order to conclude male homosexuals
are inferior.  One wonders if it works the opposite way for lesbians.
One also wonders if Clayton is really serious in his concern with
misogyny.

>I've seen more misogyny from homosexuals in soc.motss than from
>heterosexuals in all other groups combined.

Crap.  Try reading rec.humor for a day.  You'll likely see more in a
day there, or a week on soc.men, than you will find in a year on
soc.motss.

And if you want to find a misogynist, look in a mirror.



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60385 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8673 talk.rumors:1304 alt.activism:18867 alt.politics.elections:23919
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:58:36 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Nov13.203514.18128@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>If these are the two main reasons, then it may demonstrate that the
>entire system is biased against women.  If a system requires something
>of a person to succeed that functionally is not possible in most cases
>(women who want children), then the system is biased.  A key question
>is whether missing a few years of work to raise a child (or even the
>few weeks that many women take off today) really detracts from the
>contributions a women can make to a company.  In some fields, they
>would need to keep up on current education.  Obviously, there is
>lost time, but why can't they get back in where they were if they
>keep up with new knowledge in the field?  Is this a fair reason to
>put women on the slow track?

I argue that it is all part of the big trade-off which is life.  I
think it is very rare to have both the successful, high powered career
as well as a being a parent who's allways there when the kids come home
from school so to speak.  It becomes a question of what is more
important - kids or career.  Note that this does not apply only to
women - I've got a boss who's working while her husband is home with
their child.  However, it will be predominatly women who do stay home
since IMHO they have been raised to want children more than a career
and vice versa for men.  When kids are raised to view a career and
offspring more or less similarly and are aware of the tradeoffs, we
might see more men stay at home while their wifes go off to the
office.  Note also that I'm not saying that women who stay home to
raise the kids for a few years should remain home, just that they will
fall behind their peers who did not (I'm talking here about being out
of the workforce for several years - staying home for 6-12 weeks, I
dunno, I suppose it depends on how critical of a position you're in).

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60857 alt.conspiracy:12315
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off...
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:57:15 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <17NOV199215350428@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
> 
> { Subj:  = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off... }
> 
> Skip work or school. Take a sick day. Take part of the day off.
> Cut out early. Take a long lunch. Come in late ...whatever works for ya.

	Mmmmm, no.

> ..whether you go see the movie or not. 

	Not.
> 
> Did I leave anyone out?

	Those of us who think Spike is an ass because of the way he exploits
his race for personal gain.
	Anyone else disgusted by the way he shafted the family of Malcolm X
(only giving them part of th proceeds from X after they sued) and trying to
rationalize it by saying (ala Sister Souljah) he can't possibly be exploiting
anyone because he is black?

	Boycott X merchandise.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d