HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:11:21 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: gays in the military: last chance

JasonZ:
Thanks for the vote of confidence :)
>Anyway, it seems to me that my point is still pretty much untouched.  IF you
>would argue that private employees have the right to a "nonthreatening" work
>environment, then it makes no sense to claim that government employees do not
>have that right.

This one first.  Women have a right to a "nonthreatening" work force in the
context of sexual harrassment.  Technically, sexual harrassment is *not*
supposed to be allowed in the military any more than in the private sector.
Hence the new efforts to reduce its occurrence.

Note, however, that, as Peter pointed out, what is really being prevented
is *conduct* that creates the "threatening" workplace.  You have to be
clear on this, because "nonthreatening" by itself may mean different things
to different people.  Some might be "threatened" by the presence of a black
or a woman.  Tough.  Some might be "threatened" by overt sexual conduct.
*That's* something you can take action on.  See the difference?  So far
I've seen no evidence that homosexuals in the military engage in *conduct*
that is sanctionable.

>In fact, the whole reason gays and
>women have been excluded is because such living arrangements damage morale.  I
>haven't seen anyone refute this (although I've been sorting through a lot of
>uncharacteristically emotional posts -- I might have missed it, as I have no
>intention of wading through the opinions of people who resort to ad hominems).


See my last post :)  Again, according to the NPR report, a *Pentagon* study
found no basis for the claim that the presence of homosexuals would reduce
morale or combat effectiveness.  It certainly doesn't seem to be a problem
in the Israeli or German armies.  I don't know about the presence of women
-- certainly we're seeing some problems, but I don't know that that's a
function of anything intrinsic (that is, it seems to be a problem of not
enforcing good codes of conduct).

Does that help?  I think you need to show somehow that homosexuals are
going to be engaging in specific forms of conduct in order to justify the
ban.  The fact that they make some folks uncomfortable didn't work to keep
blacks and women out; they shouldn't apply here, either.

Later
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:21:00 EST
From:         keep the aspidistra flying <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      news flash: virtual election still over
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Kevin asks:
>Let me guess Steve, are you planning to run for the list presidency?

Well, he did run for list presidency, and lost to Tim, our virtual president,
and myself, the virtual vice president.  The whole virtual election sub-
plot took place from around July to November third, see.  About seven or
eight "tickets" ran on issues of great concern to the members of our great
electronic community: beer, shoes, restraint, deep-sixing government,
reasonability, more beer, being tall, ^, and so on.  (In other words, it's
a joke, son, ah say, a joke.)

In other news, I'm happy to report I'm now the proud owner of a new
exhaust system for my car.  Too bad virtual franking priveledges don't extend
to RL...

Gary W. Olson, the virtual vice president, who would not dodge a draft if
     someone else was buying...
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:14:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons

Jonathan -

        Don't get so upset with -Rich for fearing Hillary's influence!  From the
content of his posts, his mindview is pre-Donna Reed!  When your visual boundari
es just can't accept women out of the kitchen and in the boardroom - hey, how
can you be expected to understand a marriage where both partners are equal?

        So let up and let's ease him into it, OK.  Maybe we should start with
some basic info for -Rich.....like, oh, what century it is.  We'll take it
from there.


-T.
From: JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU (Song Weaver)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: don't forget to wash behind your ears...
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:58:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Okay-- I take it back.

JasonZ is not a dweeb.  He was merely behaving in dweeb-like-fashion.
It's a behavioral thing.

--Julie "What's a dweeb?" W.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:13:32 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance

>If any private employer in the country forced women to live in close quarters
>with men, the EEOC would be all over them in a heartbeat.  Even though no man
>is necesarily sexually attracted to any particular woman, such living
>arrangements violate any sense of personal privacy and dignity.  I would

Although not necessarily a private employer, don't many fire and rescue
squads house workers of both sexes together for long periods?  How 'bout
ranger services for national/state parks, or lifeguards at the beach?
Someone already mentioned the theatrical community.  And, of course, the
military at times houses men and women in close quarters.

I think we all have different ideas of personal privacy and dignity.
Although such arrangements are not common, it appears that violations
and EEOC intrusion are minimal.

>strongly suspect that many peole on this list would agree that such an employer
>should be forced to stop using such living arrangements based on the reason
>that even if no actual rape ever took place, the mere fact that the women would
>be leered at and would feel uncomfortable would be enough to make the policy
>intolerable.
>
Certainly there is alot of potential for sexual misconduct in the medical
community.  But few would try to force a policy of allowing only female
gynacologists.  Instead of a blanket policy of prejudice, doctors are
assumed to be professionals and misconduct is dealt with case by case.

And it is much more common to leer at a man/woman who is fully clothed
on the street than to ogle a naked one in the shower.  Should the state
impose a general policy against the gaze of attracted strangers

>Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why forcing straight men
>to live with openly gay men in the Army is any different from what would
>ordinarily be considered sexual harrassment.  It seems to me that many of the
>people on the "pro-gay" side of this issue are being inconsistent in this
>regard.  Anyone?
>
I don't think such arrangements are "ordinarily" considered harassment,
therefore, there is no inconsistency.  Individuals contract into the
situation with a knowledge of the arrangements.

And one thing you forget in this whole scenario is that the military
ingrains a strong sense of discipline; those who don't deal well with
orders are soon asked to leave.  As long as rules of conduct are encoded
and enforced, the sense of duty and discipline will prevail.
   todddddddddd

>JasonZ

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "What good is all the vio-
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   lence unless it is tempered
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    with limitless sex?" - GWAR
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:33:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pregnant women in the military
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt392088@drew.edu>, CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes:
> Joe:
>
>         The last figure my wife has for Navy pregnancy was that 16% of all
> women in the Navy *at sea* became pregnant there.  (I think that's for 1991).
> I'd agree that's no majority, but it is significant enough to warrant a
> solution - especially when you realize that the boats women *can* serve on
> have a high proportion of women aboard (since the billets are limited, you
> see a kind of bunching together).  If women were spread out aboard many
> ships, the resulting shift in male/female proportion *may* increase the
> problem.
>
> -T.
>
this figure is not good enough.  How many of these 16% were at sea for
the whole time they could get pregnant (the lapse time between sex
and finding out the sex meant a child can be a while, a month say is
quite possible), meaning they got pregnant via servicemen besides
their husband?  That's the problem people are so concerned about, that
is there will be sex between servicepeople.  Also, how many of the
women were preganant at sea that it really mattered they were pregnant
i.e. in peacetime women can be pregnant for a while before they can't
serve.  Women pregenant are a problem only in times when they will be
needed to serve in situations where it is untenable with the activity
they are there to do.
    This put aside, pregnancy is a possible problem for women in the
military.  I don't believe nonmarried servicewomen in any number close
to 16% are pregnant, so most are accounted for.  Shifting them around
won't help, unless I'm wrong in this assumption, which I doubt for how
many single mother pregnant during service are there?  So, though
pregnancy is an added contingency in an integrated military, I don't
see that major of a problem.  At times of war or similar military
action, pregnancy can very well be a concern if the woman is in the
war zone, but the problem isn't impossible to handle.

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:33:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Malcom X
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I thought that "Do The Right Thing" was an excellent movie, though quite
sexist (*sigh*).  I don't think Malcom X is a particularly good movie,
but that it has enough social relevance to be worthwhile and education
despite all this.  I do think that Denizel Washington's performace is
absolutely extraordinary, however, and saves the film.  The plot and
acting succeed despite the mediocore directing.  Make what you will of
this.  I'll shut up now before the relevance czar gets on my case.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:19:43 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Wages of sin
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

>Brett' asks why should we pay someone $17 / hour when someone else
>will do the work for $7 / hour.
>
>O'andy smirks:  Ethics?  B)
>
>New reason:  Because it is a SIN.
>
>Baltimore _Sun_ reports this morning that "low wages" are the
>equivalent of stealing in the eyes of the Catholic Church, who
>have produced a revised catechism (first revision in 400 years).
>
>Steve "recovering Catholic" R.
>
>The state of Maryland's a sinner, the state of Maryland's a sinner!"

I remember from my penny catechism:

Q. What are the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance ?

A. 1. Wilful Murder
   2. The sin of Sodom
   3. oppression of the poor
   4. Defrauding a labourer of his just wages

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:49:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: news flash: virtual election still over

>Well, he did run for list presidency, and lost to Tim, our virtual president,
>and myself, the virtual vice president.  The whole virtual election sub-

after noting that the election is over, and as was pointed out *is still over*,
and taking in steve's analysis that if everyone had voted for him instd. of
the tall guys, steve would've won, i have only this small thing to say....
the only logical reason people voted for the tall guys is because of our side
deal that i'd be white house cook if they won.
so there.

>In other news, I'm happy to report I'm now the proud owner of a new
>exhaust system for my car.  Too bad virtual franking priveledges don't extend
>to RL...

i got this exhaust system once at one of those places that specialize in
exhaust systems. it cost $100. they guaranteed the muffler for life. so one
year later the muffler fell off. i retrieved the muffler and went to get a new
one for free. hahaha. sure, he said the muffler is guaranteed for life, BUT the
exhaust pipe that leads to the muffler,which rusted out, is not covered in the
guarantee. well, i said, why do you guarantee the muffler and not the pipe?
because, he smirked, the pipes always rust out. so, i asked, how much for the
pipe? $80.
good luck, gary.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:28:09 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
              16 Nov 1992 15:09:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

> Once again I will state that behavior is the important thing when it comes
> to military service.  I would not advocate men and women sharing showers in
> a military situation because I don't think that men in this country are
> socialized to be capable of behaving themselves professionally in such a
> situation.  However, gay men are taught from an early age to be very
> careful about how they behave in showers, and I think they're quite
> capable of behaving sensibly and not letting their lust get the better of
> them.  This is not beause I think they are "paragons of virtue."  Just
> that they don't wish to get killed.

Julie is bringing up very interesting points here.  1) Did you just
say that men cannot behave professionally but imply that women can do?
I am not even questioning that but wanted to make sure that is what
you said.    :-)

2) Is the fact that gay men are taught to be very careful as a result
of the oppression?  If so then when the oppression is removed they might
not be careful any more.

3) Let's say that gay people are taught to be careful.  Here you are
assuming that the only damage is done is only by actions.  In other
words, as long as you don't do anything to me you can look at me as
with as much lust as you want.  How many women are willing to let
other men look at their naked body if promised no physical harm
(raise your hands and send your names and addresses to me
personally :-).

> And once again I will note that no matter _what_ happens with regard'
> to lesgays in the military service that this situation will STILL exists
> because there are non-heterosexuals in the armed services.  All that
> repealing this executive order will do is insure that people will not
> get kicked out of the service for being honest.

Your reasoning above is not good enough for me.  Say we need US citizenship
in order to join the military.  But just because there would always be
some noncitizens in the military violating this rule, it does not
mean we should lift the regulation.  I say we should study this issue
rationally (without any homophobic mentality) and come up with a decision
and implement the decision no matter what.

> --Julie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:07:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: advice and consent

I don't have the problem with Hillary, Jamie, so I'm just surmising.

However, if I take what I wrote and apply it to your last post - its *still*
doesn't meet the requirements...Clinton may have "appointed" her - but is
she subject to the a&c of an elected body?

It's the same as for the cabinet...although since it *is* pretty silly - and
the people who object are either A) Genuinely scared of powerful women or
B) Still conducting the campaign (the one that they *lost*) - I'll end it and
allow you to steam over felines.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:09:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military

>No!  First, I didn't say anything about me  :-), and second, I said
>*most* (please read above, it's in black and white), not that all male
>heterosexuals are attracted to EVERY female.

yes, i know you weren't speaking of yourself ;).

the notion that *most* men react this way to women i think feeds into a
dangerous stereotype that serves as a rationalization for men not to exercise
judgement and restraint over impulses. i don't believe that men are so over-
come by lust that higher brain functions cease.

now, if you do accept this stereotype and couple it w/the homophobic idea that
male homosexuals are even less able to control their impulses, you have set
the stage for some fairly far reaching discrimination.


>OK, let's take your assertion that people are only attracted to
>"certain" individuals.  (What is this "certain", 50%, 20%?)  Even

i really don't think it is possible to put a percentage on something this
subjective. even if you could, i don't think it validates your point of view
in any way.

>to there is two problems: 1) you don't know if you are among one of
>those "certain" individuals of the person taking shower with you,

please tell me, how would it matter if someone thought me attractive if that
person never acted on that attraction?

>and 2) why should those certain individuals be forced to take
>shower with a person who is lusting for their body.

and as i mentioned above, this would not be an issue unless the person acted
on his/her impulses. once there is an action that is out of line, then it
should be dealt with.

my point is, you cannot discriminate on the basis of possible problems. if that
were the case nothing would get done anywhere. what you need to do is institute
codes of conduct and enforce them.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:17:43 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "22 November, A Day's Remembrance"

Thanks, Val, for your tribute to JFK.  Reading it brought tears to my eyes.
Even though I was only 8 when he died, it seemed to me that there was a
hope in people that died when Kennedy did.  Everything and everyone
became grimmer; people seemed more selfish, more willing to give up.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:36:28 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

>Actually it's my impression that Gore was a journalist in Vietnam.  This
>doesn't discount from the fact that he enlisted and he went into combat
>areas armed.

Dan Rather went into combat areas armed, but he didn't enlist.

Which part of Gore's experience is interesting?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:51:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays, alcoholism, activist letters
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Oh yeah... AIDS is a GREAT reason to keep gayfolk out of the miltary.

(*sigh*).

(1) Lesbians are the lowest "risk group" for HIV.  Does allowing men
    to work near them put them at higher risk?

(2) BEHAVIOR causes the spread of HIV, not sexual orientation.

(3) The military screens every THREE MONTHS for HIV infection for ALL
    its membership.  They'll find out who is and who is not a "risk."

Get your facts straight (no pun intended)

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:30:26 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!

In article <POLITICS%92112015023811@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,
STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU says:
>
>Many people killed people in Vietnam even though they felt it was for bad
> reasons.  They felt it was their job as Americans.  When there is a war, the
> countriesare at war, not the people.  I suggest reading "All Quiet on the
> Western Front"
>by Erich Maria Remarque.
>
>-Rich

I see, so when our leaders commit our nation to a war we think is wrong and
disagree with, it's our duty as citizens to submit and go like sheep to the
slaughter. What an interesting view of citizenship and democracy.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:33:50 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "22 November, A Day's Rememb

Thank you for the interesting account of JFK's last day and your
feelings about it.

I was born in 1968 and don't remember any of this, obviously.  But I
feel just as discouraged when I hear people of >your< generation
criticizing people of >my< generation for having any amount of hope
about Clinton.  I happen to be quite interested in the spirit of
conciliation and sometimes I get extremely frustrated when all I
hear is that things can never be good or hopeful again just because
JFK was assassinated.   It's extremely frustrating to confront the
attitude that nothing can ever be good again because of something
that happened five years before I was born!

I'm also weary of this Clinton-as-JFK attitude.  Clinton is Clinton,
with his own faults and strengths.  Get used to it, everybody.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:06:18 -0500
From:         LOOK OUT! She's got a life and she's not afraid to use it!
              <JULIEWS@IDS.NET>
Subject:      Politics (yes, this is a _politics_ list)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Anyone have any recent information on Bosnia?

What about the new stories about the State Department having ordered
investigations into Clinton's passport files?

What do you all think about the transition team.  Is it working?  How
smooth a transition do you expect from Clinton?

How do you feel about Libertarianism?  Is it something you would like
to see implemented?  Do you think it is practical?  Do you think it is
a bad idea?

What do you think of Feminism?  Is it a positive force on our nation?

What are your own political leanings?  How do you identify yourself
politically, if you choose to do so?

--Julie, just trying to bring us back to some form of discussion
        of an issue...