From: stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:53:42 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

>>>> Donald Wells (dwells@nrao.edu) writes, in response to my last post:

>>>> Well said, *good* followup. I think your overall political analysis is
>>>> more accurate and balanced than that of the vast majority of people
>>>> posting in these newsgroups. Thanks! -Don

Thank you, Don, for the kudos.  I appreciate it very much. -Glen

ON THE OTHER HAND.....

> Edward Simmonds (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) writes, also in response to
> Edward Simmonds (vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) writes, also in response to
> my last post --

(Lotsa stuff NOT deleted, in order to address some blatantly insidious
assertions by Mr. Simmonds):

>>> [earlier poster, name unknown]:
>>> The advantage of this for conservatives is that solid conservatism
>>> is where we've come from, so it sound vaguely familiar and wholesome--
>>> Family Values, Small Government, Praying in school, etc....  I don't
>>> think that there'll be much disagreement that "Traditional" family
>>> values are disappearing, or that government is getting bigger.

>> [Glen Stegner]:
>> Wait a minute... maybe you can use say those three things in one breath
>> (Family Values, Small Government, Praying in School) without a problem,
>> but I see a blatant contradiction here.  If the GOP are going to impose
>> their beliefs on the American people through the devices of Family
>> Values and Prayer in School, then I call that BIG GOVERNMENT.  It's
>> government ON the people's backs, not OFF.  There is a festering
>> inconsistency here that republicans have made an art of glossing over.
>> I have argued in another thread that the R party really loves big
>> government and won't admit it.  There are several facts I could state
>> to back this up... the R party's stance on abortion, the imposing of
>> their "family values" on the rest of us who happen to live in a
>> constitutionally plural society (separation of church & state), various
>> other social issues, the protection of and catering to the wealthy and
>> the corporate interests, and the biggest festering contradiction of all
>> -- the shrinking of the private sector (small business) and the
>> unprecedented growth of government jobs during the last 12 years.  The
>> R party secretly LOVES BIG GOVERNMENT and they've done it better than
>> the D party.

> [Donald Simmonds]:
> WRONGO.  Gotta slam you on this one... you're missing some major points
> here.  Big government means a government that SPENDS ALL OF ITS MONEY ON
> SOCIAL PROGRAMS that create a dependency class that doesn't want to learn
> to work for themselves.  Nothing you have said there has any basis in
> fact.  It is the DEMOCRATIC congress that has twice amended the
> Graham-Rudman act to POSTPONE reducing the deficit.

[Stegner]:
We all know the standard conservative argument that Big Government only 
means welfare, social programs, helping the poor, etc.  Who gave the 
Republicans Websterian authority on the definition of Big Government?  
Big Government objectively means ANY kind of interference into the 
private lives of citizens where it is not welcome.  That means fiscal, 
social, or any other kind of interference.  That means ABORTION, FAMILY 
VALUES, and FLAG BURNING as well as WELFARE, GOVERNMENT REGULATION ON 
BUSINESS, and TAXES in general.  What points am I missing?  Points that 
fit into your particular brand of conservative ideology?  What have I 
said that has NO basis in fact?  All of those things I mentioned in which 
Republicans practice Big Government are fairly substantiated facts.  
Republicans just like to call it "Regulating Morality"... which I will
delve into further...

> There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the sense you
> are hoping for.  Along with fundamental rights (which liberals LOVE to
> defend as long as they defend liberal activities), you have to realize
> there are also FUNDAMENTAL MORALS.  That means killing and stealing are
> fundamentally illegal.  If a gay person who KNOWS he has AIDS engages in
> sex with another person without informing them he (or she) has AIDS, that
> is attempted murder.  But NO, scream the liberals, this is a violation of
> the gay person's fundamental rights!  Why is it a surgeon CANNOT legally
> test his patient for AIDS without the patient's consent?  He can test the
> patient for ANY other disease... that doctor should be allowed to PROTECT
> himself from a deadly disease.  If that same doctor refuses to operate
> because the patient will not allow him to test for AIDS, the ACTUP people
> will accuse the doctor of being prejudiced.  Conservatives believe that
> certain behaviors which are KNOWN to be highly dangerous should be
> voluntarily curtailed by those who think they have a right to them.  If
> these people insist on doing these things, we see NO reason why society
> should reward them by giving them special rights and subsidizing their
> medical expenses, while endangering the rest of society in doing so.

As regards your statement on separation of church and state, If George 
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin could hear you now, 
they'd all be turning in their graves.  The clause stating that "there 
shall be a clear separation of church and state..." was intended exactly 
to prevent people like you from imposing your morality on the rest of us.  
Once you begin to take the definition of FUNDIMENTAL MORALS beyond the 
basic agreed-upon violations of human rights such as Murder (a 
fundimental wrong in every sense of the word, including murder committed 
by government agencies such as the CIA in the name of democracy) or 
Stealing (a lesser evil, but nonetheless a basic agreed-upon violation of 
an individual's property rights)... then you are indeed on a very 
slippery slope, mixing Christian religious symbolism in with fundimental 
societal values basic to every religion on the planet.  Yes, Christian 
mythology teaches us that God handed down the 10 Commandments to Moses, 
which include these two violations (Murder and Stealing)... but 
Christianity is not the only form of human expression which says that 
these things are wrong; they are part of every society's norms, every 
religion's norms (except, perhaps, several denominations of the Church of 
Ozzie Osbourne).  Basic common sense tells us that they are wrong.  So 
far I haven't met or talked to a single conservative, liberal, or anyone 
else who thinks that Murder or Stealing are OK.  We don't need to become 
Christians in order to arrive at that conclusion.

> I don't think I should even approach abortion with you, but I will
> anyways. Once again, I have said that not killing other humans is a
> fundamental moral.  If you know anything about abortion (and I know
> EVERYTHING), and if you study the development and scientific evidence
> about the development of the baby from fertilization, you will realize
> that pro-life groups are DEFENDING state-sponsored murder.
                         ^^^^^^^^^
                  Don't you mean OPPOSING? (...Glen)

> This is not imposing morals that don't already exist in society.  It is
> simply applying these laws and morals to a minority class which cannot
> speak out for itself.  Gays, blacks, women and other groups have the
> ability to defend their rights through their freedom of speech.  I'm sure
> you are aware that at one time Blacks weren't considered people either.
> Murdering a slave was the slave-owner's right because the slave was HIS
> PROPERTY... sounds like "My body is MY PROPERTY" doesn't it?

You are being very selective, Mr. Simmonds, on what you define as a 
"minority class," and which minority groups deserve to have their rights 
defended.  Right away you come to the defense of unborn fetuses (which 
are dependent on their mother's bodies for survival, therefore PART of 
the woman's body until it is born), and then you mention other minority 
groups such as Gays, Blacks, and Women, and say that these people have 
the ability to defend their rights.  Not if a lot of conservatives like 
yourself can help it.

Conservatives consistently attack the latter three groups every time they 
want to redress past wrongs.  For example:  An amendment passed in the 
state of Colorado (where I live) on Nov 3 stating that "Gays shall not be 
granted special "minority group status."  The amendment will overturn 3 
ordinances (in Denver, Boulder, and Aspen) which simply state that 
"discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be tolerated."  The 
amendment, which was drafted by a group of Christian fundimentalists in 
Colorado Springs, was intended to incite fear into people by making them 
think that Gays are going to take over society if they aren't properly 
discriminated against, like they should be.  After all, their sexual 
practices are "immoral, perverted, and unnatrual" -- so why should they 
have equal rights along with all of us "normal" god-fearing people?  As 
for this "MY PROPERTY" business -- a woman's body IS her property.  
Period.  Not the Government's.  Or your's.

So, you know EVERYTHING about abortion, and apparently I don't.  Well, I 
have news for you:  Your stance on abortion takes scientific facts about 
the development of the fetus and then applies them to your own personal 
ideology.  What defines a "fully-developed human being, with 
constitutional rights" has been, and continues to be, under heated 
debate.  Most experts in the medical field, however, agree that once the 
fetus is able to survive outside of the mother's womb (during the 3rd 
trimester of pregnancy), it should then be considered a fully-developed 
human being -- with constitutional rights.  NOT when the sperm hits the 
egg, or when the fetus is still a mass of developing organic protoplasm.

It continues to appall me to see anti-abortion groups run to the defense 
of one "minority group" - unborn fetuses - while simultaneously denying 
the rights of another "minority group" - women, and the right of women to 
make their own decision on such a personal and (what should be) a 
non-political issue.  Why don't these so-called Christians (people who 
are supposed to have compassion on others) direct their energy on helping 
people who are part of the already living?

>>> The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
>>> Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
>>> Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
>>> result are kinda scary.

>> Oh dear, it appears you were not a history major in college.  You might
>> want to study a little of it to get a more balanced perspective on the
>> above assertions.  Homosexuals have been around since time immemorial,
>> they weren't suddenly invented by some evil liberal conspiracy.
>> Homosexuals fighting fortheir rights has occurred in societies throughout
>> history, and many societies around the world do not have the same
>> draconian social belief system still pervasive here in America.  Many of
>> civilization's first great philosophers, particularly the Greeks, were
>> homosexuals.  As for "obscene" art, that debate has been going on since
>> the Dark Ages and even further beyond.  I believe Michaelangelo and
>> DiVinci were not exactly seen in their time as conformists.  They have
>> only become revered in the art world in retrospect; during their time,
>> they were considered heretics by the powers that be.  And as for the flag
>> burning issue, it is again one of those "slippery slope" issues (like the
>> banning of 'obscene' art) which goes against the very nature of the
>> constitution -- the issue of the protection of FREE SPEECH.  Many
>> republicans would like to define for the rest of us what is acceptible
>> free speech and what is not.

> ExCUUUUUSE me?  Liberals ONLY defend free speech when the speech is
> liberal.  Liberals have tried banning conservative free speech countless
> times.  Rush Limbaugh has been threatened in many cities.  As for "gay
> rights", you don't seem to recognize something... conservatives aren't
> asking that gays have FEWER rights than the rest of society, only that
> they don't have MORE.  Besides that, everyone has a right to their own
> opinion, liberals agree with this when those opinions are liberal.  But
> if those opinions include the belief that homosexuality is a sexual
> perversion or disease, as some religions teach, then they insist on
> making these OPINIONS illegal.  You cannot force someone to accept a gay
> person if they don't want to.  Period.  This is a FREE country.  Nazis
> can protest in public places and scream hate towards Jews and Blacks, and
> there's not ONE thing you can do about it.  As sick and revolting as
> these guys are, they have the RIGHT to that opinion.

No, you cannot force anybody to "accept" a Gay person, but you can expect 
decent human beings to practice what is known as "tolerance" of people 
they don't understand or whose lifestyles they may not agree with.  
TOLERANCE, Mr. Simmonds.  PLURALISM, Mr. Simmonds.  Yes, this is a FREE 
country, Mr. Simmonds... so learn not to shove your moralistic ideals on 
the rest us Americans.  It is the intolerance of the Christian right that 
has spawned and developed many of the extremist right-wing social 
positions outlined in the 1992 Republican Party Platform.  (i.e. Pat 
Robertson: "Feminism causes women to kill their children, destroy 
capitalism, become lesbian communists, and practice witchcraft.")

In my opinion, Neo-Nazi groups can do whatever they want so long as they 
don't bring physical bodily harm on others... and recent evidence shows 
that these groups aren't satisfied with political verbal discourse... 
(the murder of a prominent Denver talk-show host by White Supremacist 
groups in the early 80's comes to mind).  I don't know of any liberal 
groups who advocate the assassination of Rush Limbaugh.

As for the Free Speech issue, anyone in the United States can defend 
whatever piece of speech they're interested in protecting.  Liberals are 
not obligated to work for conservatives in protecting the speech that 
conservatives want protected.  That's the job of conservatives.  And 
vice-versa.  It's when BANNING speech comes into play that you have a 
problem.  And I see no shortage of conservates with their long lists of 
the kinds of free expression they want to see BANNED.  (From Robert 
Maplethorpe to Madonna... the list is long.)  Liberals are free to 
disagree with Limbaugh, and to flame him to their heart's desire... but 
they don't have the right to censor him if his radio show is popular.  
Show me a case of a liberal who is trying to force Rush off the radio or 
TV on the SOLE BASIS that he is "politically incorrect" (i.e. an incident 
where defamation of character on the part of Rush is not an issue) and 
I'll take back what I said.

> There's got to be some standards of what it means to be a responsible
> citizen.  That means being honest enough not to endanger other citizens.

Absolutely.  Is that why it's OK for "Pro-Lifers" to go around bombing 
abortion clinics?

> Are you aware, as I'm sure you are not, that ACTUP in San Francisco
> threatened to "Go to EVERY blood drive in the city and contaminate the
> blood supply" if blood drives weren't held in the gay section of the
> city?  This is an absolute fact, I can document it extensively.  85-90%
> of gays now have HIV.  Aids tests on blood are only 95-98% accurate,
> which means that holding a blood drive in a gay neighborhood GUARANTEES
> contaminated blood will get into the general blood supply.  Don't give me
> this Gay Rights stuff.  These guys deserve NO respect from me when they
> make this kind of threat.  Needless to say, the hospital in question
> changed their position and allowed the gays to donate blood.

The kind of hate which you emanate against Gays in your diatribe above 
accounts in part for the kind of knee-jerk reactions brough about by 
Gay-rights groups (i.e. the above example of ACTUP, which if true, in no 
way do I support or agree with).  But the ACTUP reaction is simply the 
flip side of the coin to right wing actions and reactions.  Especially 
the stereotypes you perpetuate above by insinuating that AIDS is a Gay 
disease, just because it affected the Gay community first (and, as you 
conveniently leave out, spread into the heterosexual community in 
subsequent years).  Most homosexuals in the U.S. do not consider 
themselves members or advocates of ACTUP.  Your logic is:  Since ACTUP 
consists of Gays, and since ACTUP threatened to contaminate the blood 
supply if they didn't get their way, then Conclusion:  All Gays want to 
contaminate our blood and we should discriminate against them and show 
them absolutely no respect.  Which I'm sure suits you just fine.

> Liberals have done a very good job of giving themselves the image of
> those that are defending our Constitutional rights, which is totally
> ludicrous.  The Constititution and Bill of Rights also say EXPLICITLY
> that we have a right to bear arms, but the liberals are screaming GUN
> CONTROL!  The Bill of Rights never mentions the right for an HIV positive
> patient to deny providing that information to the surgeon who is going to
> operate to save his life.  The Bill of Rights also doesn't say animals
> have ANY RIGHTS at all.  Neither does it say there is a right to
> abortion, or EVEN a right to privacy.  Don't preach to me how liberals
> are defending our rights, that's a crock.

Liberals are concerned about protecting the rights that THEY are 
interested in.  Yes, that's right.  Likewise, conservatives are concerned 
about protecting the rights that THEY are interested in, too.  I have 
absolutely no beef about Charlton Heston advocating for the NRA.  If 
conservatives want to go around shooting themselves, I don't care.  But 
let conservatives handle their issues, and let liberals handle theirs.  I 
don't see how you reach the conlusion that liberals think they are 
speaking for everybody.  Liberals are defending THEIR constitutional 
rights.  Conservatives will have to defend themselves (and when they do, 
THEY aren't speaking for everybody, either!).

> Every time liberals policies are enacted in the country the number of
> people in the dependency class increases... every time.  Conservatives
> believe that by teaching, note "teaching", the poor to get themselves out
> of poverty, you do two things.. 1. You reduce the number of impoverished
> people and 2. You INCREASE the GNP and tax base and all taxes can then be
> lowered.

I am always amused when conservatives use the "Great Society" argument 
that LBJ is to blame for all of today's problems (the argument used by 
Bush to blame on the LA Riots, and by Quayle to blame on one of today's 
biggest social dilemmas - Murphy Brown).  Historically, Republicans have 
ALWAYS been against any kind of governmental social help - including the 
Social Security Act of the 1930's.  But did you see George Bush going 
after Social Security during the election campaign?  No way.  No way was 
he going to alienate those millions over over-65 voters.  Did you see 
George Bush attacking Medicare and Civil Rights (the way they define it)?  
No way.  Even though Bush was completely against the Civil Rights Acts of 
1964.  There's no way a politician like George Bush would want to 
jeopardize his political expediency for the sake of arguing a consistent 
conservative viewpoint.  But then, George Bush is no William F. Buckley.  
He's a politician who wanted to get re-elected.

How do I feel about welfare, poverty, and other traditionally liberal 
issues?  I do believe in reforming the welfare system so that mothers are 
not rewarded by having more babies, or rewarded for not having a male 
companion in the household.  I do not believe in abolishing welfare 
altogether.  I also STILL believe that society has the responsibility to 
see that an individual who is at the very periphery of society (homeless, 
destitute, and in complete poverty) should be cared for by the society 
until that person can find employment and get on with a better life.  
This being the case, there will always be a revolving door of those who 
are in desperate need, and those people should be helped.  And if it 
takes the government-sanctioned and government-implemented methods of 
achieving this, I advocate such controls.  The trouble is always the 
individual who won't work and finds welfare to be a way of living.  
Anybody who has ever been on welfare realizes that this is no way to 
maintain a dignified living.  Anybody who thinks they can eke out a 
comfortable living on welfare deserves the misery they get.

> I hope you're not a teacher at that university.

> Edward Simmonds
> no sig cause I really don't care

I am a teacher, but not at the university.  However, I'm not so sure I'd 
be tossed out on my ear by espousing the views that I espouse here in 
Boulder.

Oh, incidentally, Edward, I did want to bring this subject up.  If you're
so confident in your political views, why did you respond to me only by 
personal E-Mail and not post to the newsgroup??  Why not let others hear
what you have to say?  And why didn't you care to include your E-Mail
address after your name (cause you "really don't care??!!)

In this regard, I decided override your desire to hide your comments from
this newsgroup, and posted your comments in this dialogue.  And for anyone
who wants to respond to Mr. Simmonds personally on his political
commentary, here, once again, is his E-Mail address:

        Edward Simmonds
        vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Glen Stegner
University of Colorado at Boulder
stegner_g@cubldr.colorado.edu