HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
Subject: CLINTON: Season's Greetings & Best Wishes for a Happy New Year
Date: 19 Dec 1992 21:06:37 -0500
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu



Season's Greetings and Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!

Thank you for your messages to the Office of the President-elect.
This mailbox will be unattended from December 22, 1992 until January 4th,
1993.  Please try again after January 4th.  If you prefer, you may send
hardcopy messages to the address below:

   The U. S. Mail address for the Clinton/Gore Transition Team is:

	Office of the President-Elect
	Atkins Building
	105 West Capital Street,  Suite 400
	Little Rock,  Arkansas   72201

	Telephone: (501) 374-3322


Regards,
Jock Gill
Public Access Email
Office of the President-Elect
75300.3115@compuserve.com




Distribution:
  Clinton Volunteers >internet:clinton-volunteers@campaign92.org
  Clinton News >internet:c-news-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Economy >internet:clinton-economy-distr@campaign92.org
  Clinton Foreign >internet:c-foreign-distr@campaign92.org

Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:86 alt.politics.usa.misc:645 alt.activism:19523
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Re: F15 pant pant pant etc.
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.190048.20340@samba.oit.unc.edu> David.Kelman@launchpad.unc.edu (David Kelman) writes:
>In article <Bz158E.9n5@news.udel.edu> claire@chopin.udel.edu (Claire Elizab Barna) writes:
>
>< stuff deleted >
>
>>Let me see if I can further expand on my explanation. I think a lot of
>>rape goes on in prison by people who wouldn't necessarily engage in such
>>behavior if they were out in society. Men in men's prisons rape because
>>they need a sexual outlet, they are probably not even homosexual. Same
>>goes for women. However, in society there are sexual outlets. Also, I
>>don't believe rape stats include the rape that goes on in prison so male
>>on male rapes aren't included in those figures.  
>>
>>
>
>I'm sure that the fact that victims of the rapes inthe prisons are not
>consoled by the fact that if they were not in prison, that they likely
>would not have been raped.  Regardless of the situation, it is still a
>rape, and is likely to have an devastating emotional impact on the
>survivor.  Perhaps the stats should include these rapes?  Or, as you seem
>to be implying, should we only consider rapes that occur in a 'natural'
>environment (my term for it)?
>
>David Kelman


      I am continually amused at the way in which people twist wording
and make inferrences that no *logical* argument would derive.  The original
poster did not state anything even resembling what you inferred.  The poster
commented that prison rapes are not included in rape statistics.  The poster 
did seem to imply that those who rape in prison would not be rapists in society.
If you think that is a justification for prison rape, I would claim that you are
mistaken.  If you infer that the poster was giving a reason for prison rape,
then I would agree with you.  However, for you to put any of the other
"interpretations" into the poster's words is to make the response an
attack, and not an extension of the argument.

I request (respectfully if I must) that flames be reserved for other boards.
I for one have gotten tired of the attacks by and on Claire B, and others.
I welcome disagreement.  William Starr has disagreed with my positions on
rape, and has posted evidence to refute my claims.  However, Mr. Starr did not
attack me, or attempt to reinterpret what I said.  That is the way a response
should appear on this board.  Let's debate the issues/topics/subjects.  Not
the posters/writers/opinion specialists that post to the board.  If you
don't like what someone wrote, refute what they wrote.  Don't refute them.

                                                    Karen
>
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: claire@brahms.udel.edu (Claire Elizab Barna)
Subject: Re: Sexual Orientation Rights
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:33:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.164740.19590@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1g89hoINN32h@agate.berkeley.edu>, 
>sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) said:
>
>> > ...I just came here from my Sociology of Sex & Gender class and
>> > had two men proclaim that they are anti-gay rights.  I was so
>> > pissed off, I wanted to bash them. 
			     ^^^^
>>
>> Is it just me, or is the irony in this statement hilarious! : "I am
>> intolerant of intolerance -- be kind to your neighbor or I will beat
>> the living crap out of you"

If anyone caught this bravo-- I was being facetious! This is why I used
the term "bash". Because this is what happens to a lot of gays, lesbians,
& bisexuals who are open about their sexual orientation. It is just as
ridiculous to hurt people for their ignorance as it is to hurt them for
their sexual orientation.  >



Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.save.the.earth
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 08:31:14 GMT



In article <2100.2b2f909c@mbcl.rutgers.edu> imran@mbcl.rutgers.edu
  (Shahid Imran) writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>	What follows is an article from the New York Times.  Why am I posting
>it here?  I feel that some of the issues pertain to at least some of the
>threads I have seen in this group (and the other groups that I am posting to).
>The article is about the calculated destruction of the Bosnian Muslims.  The
>article contains extremely graphic descriptions of brutality, torture, and
>rape.  


I hope this ghastly piece signals a new willingness on the part of the
Times and the papers which reprint it to cover state-sponsored mass murder.
Governments can only carry out crimes of this magnitude in secret, so the
Free Press owes it to humanity to bring these stories out.
I hope the Times sees fit in the future to cover the equally ghoulish
ongoing calculated destruction of the indigenous Guatamalans, the Tibetan
people, the Burmese, the Timorese, the Bangladeshis, the Amazonian Indian
tribes.  No doubt I've skipped at least one of today's secret genocides;
the point is that there are many and the Times has not exactly been
featuring them on page 1 every day.  Thank you, Shahid, for posting this.

If you'd like to *do* something about these tragedies, one place to start
is to join Amnesty International.  In the USA, contact Amnesty at 322 8th
Ave., New York NY 10001 (212)807-8400.  Another constructive action would
be to write the Times: encourage them to enlarge the set of victims they
see fit to discuss.  Write to Editor, The New York Times, 229 W 43rd St.,
New York, NY 10036 (212)556-1234.

Imagine a world without secret wars!

Cameron Spitzer
cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
From: sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Sexual Orientation Rights
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:08:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec11.164740.19590@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1g89hoINN32h@agate.berkeley.edu>, 
>sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) said:
>
>> > ...I just came here from my Sociology of Sex & Gender class and
>> > had two men proclaim that they are anti-gay rights.  I was so
>> > pissed off, I wanted to bash them.  [Claire Elizab Barna]
>>
>> <we don't need to read my stuff again>
>
>In defense of Ms Barna, you have to also consider the implied addendum
>to her statement: "...but I didn't."
>
>What goes on in our heads -- what we'd _like_ to do -- can get pretty
>ugly at times.  Our triumphs come when we say to ourselves "But it
>would be wrong to do that, so I won't, much as I'd like to."

You are correct.  This - after all - is a key element to the previous
flog-a-dead-horse discussion about the difference between having fantasies
about being raped and actually wanting to have that happen.  By our
intellect controlling our impulsive thoughts so that we can know better
in some circumstances and don't always act on them, we become
civilized.

No intention to be the 'thought' police here - I just found irony in the
impulsive thought of 'bashing' a group of people who are often associated
with gay *bashing*.  A sort of "it goes full circle" kind of thing.
This is one of my criticisms of the mental censorship inherent in a lot
of 'politically correct' philosiphies - how intolerance of intolerance is
virtually self-hate.  But no slight intended to Claire.

greg
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton)
Subject: Re: Obscenity law (US)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:38:20 GMT

Dan:

>    Would anyone support a rewriting of the obscenity law in the US? As I
>understand it, the test for obscenity has three parts.
>
>1) Must appeal to the prurient nature.

In part 1 lies the absurdity of the law. 'Of a prurient nature' is just a
derogatory synonym for 'erotic'. This should have been left back in the Dark
Ages.

>2) Must show sex in a patently offensive manner.
>3) Must lack serious scientific, literary, or artistic value.

Parts 2 & 3 are really just dodges, so the supporters of this medievalism
won't be faced with "smoking gun" examples like _Lady Chatterly's Lover_ that
show the absurdity of their position.

>    Would anyone support a rewriting of the obscenity law in the US?

Yes, I'd support rewriting it to this:  "" (No, your newreader isn't playing
tricks. This is blank.) What turns you on is simply not the government's
business. Period.

>    What does that leave for obscenity? Only one thing I can see. Noone
>wants a red-light district in thier backyard.

True enough. But I argue that without Puritanism, there would be no such
red-light districts. Who'd choose to sell their wares that way if it weren't
illegal?

I offer Holland as an example of how unproblematic legalizing obscenity (and
other victimless "crimes") is.

        Tom

-- 
The Tom spreads its huge, scaly wings and soars into the wild sky...      
up...       up...     out of sight...   (tob@world.std.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Gay rights, etc.
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:24:56 GMT

In article <Bz49sG.KJB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
   I want to explain a little something about we are so desperately
   trying to get sexual orientation clauses passed.  (I say we,
   although I can only speak for myself and those people whom I have
   spoken with on the subject.)  You see, I don't believe in
   Affirmative Action.  I don't believe in the quota system.  And I
   don't believe in preferential treatment.

Although it might be difficult in practice to seperate
anti-discrimination legislation from "affirmative action" legislation.
(Or does AA come entirely from government administrative orders and
corporate policies?)  AA seems to have sprung up rather quickly after
the principle of anti-discrimination was accepted.

Perhaps as a political position, it would be expedient to advocate
anti-discrimination legislation along with the elimination of AA.
(But that would probably alienate most liberals.)

Personally, I don't mind that some people are discriminated against in
some circumstances.  There are always life's vicissitudes.  In a
properly functioning (labor, housing, whatever) market, a
discriminator only incurrs a continuing cost on himself.  The victim
can simply go elsewhere to obtain what he wants.

HOWEVER, there are times when a prejudice is so widespread that there
is no "elsewhere" to go to.  Those are the times when
anti-discrimination legislation is needed.  But I think that that is a
remedy that should be applied sparingly, and only when there is solid
statistical evidence that there is substantial long-term damage to
people in the group.

For example, there is a substantial prejudice against fat people in
this country.  But I don't think that it is strong enough or universal
enough to prevent fat people from getting about the same income, etc.
as everybody else.  So it is not time to add them to the
anti-discrimination laws.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Obscenity law (US)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:35:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.162708.21826@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec14.235741.12681@news.columbia.edu>, 
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) suggested:
>
>> Let local authorities decide where porn can be sold, rather than
>> threaten distributers with criminal prosecution. If the law is
>> written correctly, it would allow local video stores to carry porn,
>> and 7-11 to carry Playboy, but also provide security for those who
>> want to keep red-light districts in check.
>
>_If_ the law is written correctly... but isn't it more likely, in real
>life, that the local politicians would bend to the wishes of -- or
>what they perceived to be the wishes of -- the local whitebread
>church-going god-fearing Good Upstanding Citizens and simply write the
>laws so as to prevent all smut from ever being purveyed legally
>anywhere within the borders of their fine town?
>
   The problem is that they can do this now, but with a criminal trial.
Your local video store that has a small collection of porn available could
be shut down, and the owner _arrested_ and charged with a crime.
   I'm saying to decriminalize porn in all cases, and to make the matter
one of zoning. It shouldn't be too difficult to write a zoning law that
would stop people from zoning an industry out of business. And to exempt
local video stores in some way.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:53:47 GMT

sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:

>In article <BzH7v3.6BG@world.std.com> tob@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
>>Actually, it alienated me. In addition to its' message about the tragic
>>suffering in Bosnia, it carried another message - only women's suffering is
>>important. Which is to say, it was Feminocentric.
>>
>>We both know that men are being slaughtered in that troubled area, yet
>>instead we focus on women. That bias really puts me off.
>>
>>Regardless, I do hope Bosnia gets some relief despite this.
>>
>>        Tom

>I see your point, Tom - but you can also add "Pedicentric" to messages of
>suffering in this country.  I don't know - I find it kind of sad really
>that the tragedy of murdered and tortured women and children is elevated
>to a higher plane than others for some reason.  it's all equally tragic,
>yet I can't help but get the feeling from American media that the
>sentiment is something along the lines of "this horrible accident befell
>an innocent child - what a terrible tragedy" and "some old guy (or woman)
>died in a fire - next up, 20 things you can do with those holiday leftovers...".
>Kinda leaves me with the sick feeling that older people are expendable or
>something.

>greg

I can't believe these comments. It is natural to feel more 
protective of women and children -- and there is a reason for it.
From a survival point of view, men, and older people 
ARE more expendable than women and children. Children are the
future of a society; women can produce children. 

There is good reason why the Serbs are targetting the women
and children, and it is utterly abhorrent. If you eliminate
90% of the women, you have probably eliminated 90% of the 
next generation. If you eliminate 90% of the men .. well,
luckily the Muslim religion condones polygamy so possibly
the numbers of the next generation might be unchanged.

In the short term, of course, the survival of the men is
probably essential to ensure that there is a next generation ..

But more than these logical reasons, I think protection
of women and children is something that has been deeply
engrained by every society. It's something we feel.

Cliches like  "women and children first" and "a wolf defending
her cubs", show that protection of women and children is natural,
and is not restricted to humans.

Feeling alienated because there is more concern over the plight of
women and children than men and elderly is a very strange
reaction to the posting.

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu




Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: agoodrid@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Should Packwood be pardoned?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:53:00 GMT


I thought I'd throw out a topic related to the newsgroup name
(unlike some of the topics posted here recently :-))


Bob Packwood recently appeared at a TV news conference to formally
'apologize' for his previous alleged actions toward a substantial
number of women (24?).

He said (as I recall) that he was sorry and did not understand the
full gravity of his actions.  After consulting with various
people he has realized his mistake and now "gets it" (in reference
to the silly admonition occasionally banded about - Men just don't
get it.

He adds that he sees no reason to resign because even though his
acts were wrong (he said 'wrong') the women who have accused him
did not lose any pay or denied any jobs because they resisted him.
I presume he means they were just inconvenienced.

Now, I think things are more interesting than before.  Before the
election there was lots of denials; and suggestions of possible
intimidations by Packwood or Packwood affiliates.  His tune has
changed and he is seeking redemption.  Should he get it?

If no, what should he get?

I expect all or most feminists want him to resign and if possible
be censured in some way.  After that point the rest of America
will take a variety of different views all the way up to - let him
stay, he said he was sorry.

Let's say that you think he should resign.  If this issue is too
cut-and-dry for you let me try to make it harder (otherwise its
not interesting, right? :-))

Say there's a Bill Packwood and he's accused by a woman who says in
1986 he once put his arms around her kissed her on the mouth.  She
was confused and angry about what he did but she did not talk about
the incident with anyone else except her close friends.  The
incident becomes public after she changes her mind and tells a
newspaper her story.  No other women come foward with stories of
"improper behavior".  Bill Packwood did not talk to her after the
incident and as far as she knows he's forgotten it.

Should Bill resign?

I created the second example on purpose.  I think Bob Packwood
should resign but Bill Packwood should not.  Somewhere in there
is a crossover point that I cannot find.  Anyone willing to tell
me where that is?  Of course, this assumes that you think Bill
should not resign.  If you think he should resign what is the
maximum transgression he can be allowed to commit and still keep
his job but perhaps be required to be chastised in some way (a
fine, etc.)

Steve    AGOODRID@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: hicks@pulsar.rtp.dg.com (Linus Hicks)
Subject: Re: Death penalty
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 23:39:21 GMT
Reply-To: hicks@dg-rtp.dg.com
Organization: Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <Byyyyu.K2w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
|>       Greg, (and all the others who have so stimulatingly responded):

    [Stuff deleted]

|>                                                      Karen
|> 

We have flogged the death penalty to death now, how about some ways
to reduce prison overcrowding like effective rehabilitation??

Linus
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: osiris@athena.mit.edu (Marcel Bruchez Jr.)
Subject: Florida Court Decision on Pinups 
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: alt.politics.sex
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:28:43 GMT


I was wondering if anyone has the text of this decision made by Judge Howell
Melton in the Jacksonville Shipyard case about pinups in the workplace.  I
know it is a bit old(Feb 1991), but I can't find it on line, and I need it for
a report.  If you have it, can you send it to me so that I can use it.

Thanks,
-Marcel Bruchez
osiris@athena.mit.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Obscenity law (US)
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:27:08 GMT


In article <1992Dec14.235741.12681@news.columbia.edu>, 
dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) suggested:

> Let local authorities decide where porn can be sold, rather than
> threaten distributers with criminal prosecution. If the law is
> written correctly, it would allow local video stores to carry porn,
> and 7-11 to carry Playboy, but also provide security for those who
> want to keep red-light districts in check.

_If_ the law is written correctly... but isn't it more likely, in real
life, that the local politicians would bend to the wishes of -- or
what they perceived to be the wishes of -- the local whitebread
church-going god-fearing Good Upstanding Citizens and simply write the
laws so as to prevent all smut from ever being purveyed legally
anywhere within the borders of their fine town?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Obscenity law (US)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 08:12:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

>In article <1go791INN3p4@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>
>[about porn]

>>Better yet:  legalize it, tax the hell out of it, and let the
>>free market control it.
>>
>   Why tax it more than other magazines, videos, etc?

Good point.  I suppose whatever govt held authority to tax could 
set the tax levels to discourage consumption, as with cigarettes.
That's democracy, I guess.
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex