HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:02:18 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      NINAR needs a clue...
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        NINAR, in a repeat showing of the "state's rights and federal funding"
post, says:

>No, it is not a good idea to chuck state's rights out the window, nor
>would the founders have thought so...

BZZZZZZZT.  Sorry, NINAR, YOU"RE WRONG!  Don Pardo, please tell NINAR
about the lovely parting gifts...
        Now, shall we refer to Federalist 6, and the words of Alexander Hamilton
for a
 moment?:
        "Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of
those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption
from the imperfections, the weaknesses, the evils incident to society in
every shape?  Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden
age and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political
conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet
remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?"

A beautiful passage, directed at the necessity of a strong central gov't. and
 ququite applicable to your arguments about damn near everything.
        We do not live in the world you postulate, where states would somehow
just naturally fall in line with the Federal Bill Of Rights and/or laws that
are unpopular in certain states.  Again, I ask--no sorry, I already did that...
I DEMAND that you explain yourself in the light of the actions of southern
states re:civil rights in the period between 1863 and the Civil Rights Act of
1964.  That century + 1year completely contradicts your central postualte
of "the natural process toward voluntary acceptance".
        I wait for your reply...

                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:59:41 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Oh, I get it now... 5 days into his administration, Clinton becomes
retroactively responsible for the pathetic profit margins of a major
corporation, whilst George "Da-Bush",gets off scot free for his
inaction on the domestic front in the four years he took the point?
        Oh my lack of god! The logic hath blinded me!!!  (I guess the
next thing Bubba #1 will be blamed for will be the intense weather
in California...)
                                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:02:49 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
              21 Jan 1993 07:49:55 CST from <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:49:55 CST rufus t. firefly said:

>   i think that one of these first months, the nation is gonna look at
>clinton and wish that george was back in the white house. it should be
>about 6 months before everybody realizes that bill is not up to the
>job, and then we have another 3 1/2 years before we can put someone
>competent in the white house. ethics. haitians. living with saddam.
>maybe we *should* just let hillary run things . . .

It's funny.  The supporters of Dan Quayle did not realize he
was not up to the presidency job even after 8 years.

>   which reminds me. supposedly hillary will be "in charge of domestic
>policy", or so i heard on the radio. does this refer to the servants
>at the white house or something else?

Can you be more specific?  Which radio program, who said it,
who reported it?

>empower america - kemp '96

I really hope so.

>rtf

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:54:08 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>I'll go further.  The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon. It
>is a blatantly biased paper that most people (except Brett') totally
>disregard.  And the Post and the Times didn't run the transcripts
>_because_ the tapes were doctored.  The doctoring was authenticated
>by CNN's audioligist and ABC's.

        Better hold your horses there.  I merely forwarded the article from
Usenet.
>> But Clinton did not *admit* anything either (except the Mario
>> reference and that it was basically him on the tape).  And many
>> tape-analysts said that the tape had been "doctored"

        Except that show where Hillary said she had forgiven him....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,
             @MIZZOU1.missouri.edu:CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:18:23 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kerry Stephenson and immigrant culture
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I, too, would applaud Mike McCarthy's excellent post on immigration patterns
and behaviors in the US. My studies on this have been far scanter than Mike's,
but I have come up with a very general view on this matter. Every wave of
immigrants, be it early in our history or later, has encountered "nativist"
hostility to some degree - the major ones I can think of are the Irish,
 Germans,Italians, blacks, Orientals, east Europeans, Russians and Jews. But, I
 also
believe, and have seen some evidence of this in life, that as a general rule
(and I except native Americans from this generalization) that "most" groups
"assimilate" to a great degree just by the passage of time, usually three
generations. The first generation tends to enclave, not learn much English,
hang on to language and culture from the "old country" to a great degree. The
second generation often can speak the language of their parent's origin
country, but become much more facile in English, get better jobs, and move
away from enclaval living. The third generation rarely speaks the "mother
tongue," is totally "American" in outlook, lives wherever, and often ignores
their roots or are "ashamed" of them. An analogy has been offered in terms of
political power/access - the first generation to get into office is often the
second generation here, and they are crude, brash, often corrupt, and wield
power bluntly. The second generation to achieve political power (the third
"in country") is slicker, smoother, more accomodating with other groups, still
a bit raw at the edges, more subtle. The third generation in "power" is part
of the mainstream, origins no longer a question. What do you think? (I'm
especially interested in the History Czar's opinion on this theory). VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:58:09 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: The good old days
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

( Stuff deleted )
>
> > I'm sorry but half a day in office is too soon to start bitchin' about
> > what hasn't been accomplished. Also, as stated in the inaugrual address,
> > a great deal of what is accomplished will depend on the willingness of
> > joe/jane average american to become involved and make a difference. If
> > you want change work for it, don't wimper about it.
> >
>    let's look at what he *has* done. the transition has been slow at
> best, 100 appointments out of 4000 or so, policy reversals on stuff
> he was thought to feel strongly about (haitians, ethics for instance).
> and if becoming "involved" means "paying more taxes" and "making a
> difference" means "lowering my standard of living", i respectfully
> decline.
Clinton's transition while under massive attacks from the media is
not slower than Reagan's in '81.  In fact, in a lot of places he is
ahead of Reagan.  I don't know if Reagan '81 should be the bellweather,
but I think that Clinton is doing fine!  As for "policy reversals", I
take issue with you but I'll leave it to another thread.  As for declining
to participate in your definition of Clinton's presidency (yes it does
feel good!), fine but that means that you don't get to participate in the
rejuvenation of our economy!
>
>   he also called for sacrifice. the best way we can do that is to
> cut the heart out of a hell of a lot of government programs.
>
>   if clinton wants people to do things for themselves and get involved
> in things, then he should get the government out of the way and let
> them do it. we don't need more government, we need less. free the
> american worker and the results will astound you. and then we'll hear
> the liberals bitching about the immorality of a society that makes
> people rich instead of making them poor.
Fine.  Then you run for president.  Because Reagan and Bush didn't make
the government smaller.  They just quadrupled the debt.
>
> > fred
>
> rtf
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:43:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >I have no problems with free speech, (I practice it myself and you are
> >free to listen or not) but when that speech becomes a threat of violence
> >or actual violent acts, I (and most people) draw the line.
>
> Nice weasel words.  It isn't a threat of violence when people scream
> fuck the draft, but screaming "ban abortion" is.

Nice try, but there's a world of difference between screaming at the
government, and screaming at a fellow citizen while simultaneously
trying to impede her exercise of a constitutional right.  Funny how
the people who gathered last Friday to scream "ban abortion" were not
molested, hm?

Best,
Peter

> -andy

>> other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:14:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

Kerry, yet another list member spouting predictable conservative babble,
says:

>All these numbers are neat, but:
>
>Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
>in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
>And climbing.
>
>Have a nice day.

Yes - the operative phrase in there is "pre-natal"; "before birth".
Pretty hard to have a death BEFORE a birth, wouldn't you say?


Anyway, if you want to include those statistics, that's not the #1 cause -
spontaneous abortions far outnumber abortions by choice.

Actually, we shouldn't see a rise in abortions by choice. Exactly the opposite!
(Perhaps sponatneous ones, with all the women being physically and verbally
assaulted by zealots - BTW, did you know Judas was a zealot? But I digress...)

Since President Clinton (again, for good measure) President Clinton will,
together with the Congress, make the legal abortion debate a moot point
with The Freedom of Choice Act, all that venom and energy will have to
be directed in the ONLY direction which will stop abortions - education to
stop unwanted pregnancies.

With the possible exception of the VERY few who make money off abortions,
I know of NO ONE in the Pro-Choice (and therefore, pro-life) Movement who
is PRO-ABORTION.  Let's work to stop unwanted pregnancies, ignorance of sex
and STDs, and useless deaths from illegal abortions.


Like the Arthur DeMoss Foundation (slightly to the right of Pat Buchanan)
ads say:

"Life. What a Beautiful Choice."

Exactly - it couldn't BE a choice if we let the "pro-life" people
make the rules!



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:40:30 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Monopoly
              24 Jan 1993 00:23:38 -0700 from <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>

Dom, Sweetie:

Exhibiting a preference that people you disagree with "go directly
to jail" is the first sign of fascist tendencies.  (That is a joke--
NOT an offer to sign up for the "define an elusive political concept"
contest.)

You might consider a 12-step program.  There might be an opening in
the "Adult Children With No One To Blame But Themselves" group.

Actually, this is kind of fun.  Not quite giving as good as you
get, but getting close.

Until the next Battle, oh Hoodwinked One,

--NINAR Kerry
  Because No One Else Will Tell You
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:05:15 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: why ask why ?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> [ I deleted some bias, misrepresented stuff about Clinton's tears at
>   a religious ceremony and how republicans couldn't get away with it. ]
>
> Not one single network mentioned the fact that the vast majority of
> those present at the balls were white.  Despite the overwhelming
> support of blacks, the Democrats could only put them on the stage to
> entertain !
So you were there? At all the balls?  Because based on my extensive
viewing, I only got snippets of a couple of balls (no sick joke here OK?).
And based on my viewing on NBC's something on the night of Jan 20, there
were many multi-cultured balls (ditto).

> And lets face it, the press has always considered it the
> responsibility of republicans to get minorities in celebrations -
> [blah, blah, blah]
Which press was that?  Was that the CSPAN that gave unaldurated viewing?
Or the CNN that had cameras everywhere?
>
> Where we all of the interviews with the homeless and the people who
> were not so happy because all of the celebrating won't get them their
> jobs back ?
Believe it or not, I saw some of this.  But the point of the air time
was the celebration of a new president.  I participated in Bush's without
whining.  The least you could do is to participate in this one without
whining.
>
> I guess all of the disgruntled disappear - or lose air time - under a
> Democratic regime.
bzzzzt.  You just didn't watch enough.
>
> amazed by the crudeness of it all,
OK.  I'm amazed at the closed-mindeness of you! :-)
>
>                                     P.S.Ruckman, Jr.
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:31:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: "On Gay Rights ..."

> Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:51:14 EST
> From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Re: "On Gay Rights ..."
> To:           "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020>
> In-Reply-To:  Message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:24:00 EST from <U952020@RUTADMIN>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:24:00 EST Carl A. Lahetta said:
>
> >   A homosexual act is a homosexual act.  Besides, if gays and pedophiles are
> >   different then what about NAMBLA.  To NAMBLA both sex and gender are
> >   important.
>
> A heterosexual act is a heterosexual act.  Therefore,
> all heterosexuals are rapists.  And what about all
> those evil men who molest young girls.  To them both
> the sex and gender (what ever that means) are
> important.
>
> Teah, what about THEM, Carl.
>
> How is your lunch, Carl?  Is all the housework done?
>
> >Carl---+
>
> --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:25:01 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Ms. perception
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Maybe it's just friday (linda, where's the countdown?), maybe it's campus
politics, maybe it's that link problems still have our system acting
weirder than normal, maybe it's just that I've read a lot of messages very
quickly, but . . .

I've picked up this sort of gestalt impression of a few discussion threads
that seem to run along the lines of "Clinton is the last great hope" and
"Clinton will ruin the country" and "Bush was an unmitigated disaster" and
"Bush was the last great hope".  Surely I'm not alone in being optimistic
about the new administration, but also recognizing that Clinton is not the
saviour -- in being glad for the changing of the guard, but also
recognizing that Bush was not evil incarnate.

I'm not trying to be critical here (no, really :)) -- I just wanted to
point out that we have plenty of interesting things to discuss without
painting ourselves into partisan corners.

Don't we?  Or am I totally off base?

So who's the most likely new AG nominee?  And what exactly was it about Zoe
Baird that got people so *very* het up?

Kerry
I can almost taste the beer :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:36:29 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: where liese is; or, i once was lost, but now am found

Brett':

Have you read _Fatherland_ and if so, what'd you think?

I found it interesting to say the least.  I didn't think that its
the best-written book of the decade, but the intricasy, etc was
fascinating.  I did like the way Stalin was the one denounced--
it sort of worked along the lines that the one who loses the war
is always made out to look like the devil, while the winner always
is the angel.

jbc
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:26:46 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>   don't forget ramsey clark's new book, "u.s. war crimes in the gulf",
>available now at all cpusa offices . . .
>
>rtf

        Was Ramsey in a car or plane crash in the 70s?  The man is DEEEEEEEEP
off the end.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:29:09 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        They already did... See "Eyewitness Video"(AKA America's Most
Tragic Home Videos) of a few weeks back...

                                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:22:16 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

All these numbers are neat, but:

Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
And climbing.

Have a nice day.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:31:37 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Generally speaking, it would be there on the horizon with little public outcry,
>and perhaps less support than the Space Invaders Gulf War.
>
>                                                        Dan, ad nauseum

        So far, the only ones to characterize the Gulf War as a video-game war
have been the left (or liberal, or whatever term you'd like to use :).

        Just an interesting observation....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:34:39 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Moynihan quivers

O.K., not only has Al Sharpton said that he plans to challenge Pat
Moynihan in the 1994 Democratic Party primary for his Senate seat,
but now Barbara Streisand says she may run for that seat, too.

I hope that it happens, only so that we can see the three of them
debate.  That would be great!

...Rick (who thought that nothing would top the Ferraro-Holtzman-
   Abrams-Sharpton free-for-alls last fall)
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Uncl: Quotable quotes
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:58 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93012713585477@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,    
     Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes...
>"Your abortion can be a rebellious and empowering act.  It is an act
> through which you can assert yourself; one which can enable you to
> feel more connected to women around the world.  Indeed, it is a
> surgical operation with a mission."
>                 - Rebecca Walker, in Harper's Magazine Nov '92
>                   contributing editor
>                   Ms. Magazine
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>Mx Walker,
> 
>You are a hateful, evil, immoral murderous b____!
> 
>                           Sincerely,
> 
> 
>---Robert

Well, yes, it's apparent Ms. Walker is not exactly tactful, and maybe even
stuck in a time warp, but then again, Ms. is aimed at an audience that 
generally agrees with _Roe_.  As for Mr. Moss' response, I think he may be 
overreacting.

								Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU