HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Designers Trying to Change Clinton
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:28:11 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati


Greetings y'all,


I noticed last night on TV that designers are trying to 'upgrade' Clinton's
suits and watch.  What is it about the American people?  They appreciate
someone who is 'human' and is elected to 'serve the people' yet they go along
with encouraging these officials to purchase $5000 watches and designer made,
one-of-a-kind suits.
They complain that the Reagans overspent yet they admire them for their 'wealth
and expensive tastes'.  Then you have Jim Bob Carter who wore blue jeans or at
least more reasonably priced clothing, and then everyone complains that he is
degrading the office of President by wearing cheap clothing.
Does anyone understand this?

Happy New Year!
-Pamela Cho-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19467 alt.politics.bush:15365
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexual
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody
Date: 2 Jan 93 04:04:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina State University

There are some situations where nude men and women can interact
(like nude beaches or nudist camps) where problems with sexual 
harassment are usually non-existent.  Nobody expects men or women
to sexually harass each other in these situations.  Yet the
situation changes when considering showering facilities in the
military. 

Of course, not everyone in the military would want to voluntarily
visit a nude beach.  But perhaps a major reason for separate 
showering facilities is the expectation that sexual harassment 
problems would arise if there were no separation.  Is this
expectation reasonable when considering gays in the military?
From: Steve Freedkin <sfreedkin@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:23 PST
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec22.200150.19350@osf.org:1863206612:cdp:1588800075:000:1524
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!sfreedkin    Dec 27 01:23:00 1992


Clinton's promise re the Cabinet, as I've seen it quoted, was that he
would appoint a Cabinet that "looks MORE like America" [emphasis mine].
That's not a quota process -- it's a goal.  Appointing women, blacks,
Hispanics, Asians is far more than giving those few individuals an
opportunity.  It is fundamentally setting up role models for future
generations.  In the last year I've heard many successful, famous black
leaders, especially women, name particular African Americans who came
before them in entertainment, media, or government who served as role
models -- at an early age (lower elementary grades), they saw this person
with the same skin color as their own actually being a successful leader,
and that, more than anything else, prompted them to apply themselves to
their own success.  (Nichelle Nichols ["Lt. Uhura" on the original Star
Trek"] and Whoopie Goldberg are two who've made such statements recently.)
Therefore, I think it is CRITICALLY important to have a diverse Cabinet.
The benefits it provides in terms of motivating young women and non-white
children are so important that in most cases I'm willing to forego the
BEST possible candidate in favor of a VERY GOOD candidate who isn't a
white male.  My push for Bruce Babbitt was because the other candidates
being considered didn't meet this test -- they didn't have nationally
recognized records as environmental leaders, so I didn't think they were
adequate for Interior Secretary.  There's still much work to do to redress
the James Watt era.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.bush,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers)
Subject: Re: Cable competition! (was Re: Tolls on the federal highways!)
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:01:04
	<1992Dec13.144908.20951@netcom.com>
	<1992Dec13.215058.11960@news.columbia.edu>
	<1992Dec14.075259.17693@netcom.com> <1992Dec15.213840.13647@fx.com>
Organization: Data General, Westboro, Mass.



    Glen> without interference from local government. In those
    Glen> markets, according to a March, 1990 survey by Consumers'
    Glen> Research magazine, competing cable companies consistently
    Glen> charged lower fees and provided better service (as measured
    Glen> in the number of channels provided) than did the monopoly
    Glen> carriers in nearby markets of similar character. At the time
    Glen> of the survey the average of the competitive markets they
    Glen> polled was a monthy rate of $14.23 for 39 channels, or 37
    Glen> cents a channel. The average of the non- competitive markets
    Glen> they polled was a monthly rate of $17.33 for 33 channels, or
    Glen> 55 cents a channel. Quite a difference.

    Glen> The message is clear; get government out of the loop and
    Glen> cable will be cheaper. I don't need a government permit to
    Glen> start a newspaper; why should I need one to start a cable
    Glen> company?

Actually, the message cannot be that clear, because it is being
improperly interpreted here.  The law says that the companies will be
regulated if they do not allow competitors to enter their markets.
Companies that are in a competitive market are not to be regulated.
That law is government "interference" and I personally welcome it with
my current rate for basic service at more like $25.00 in a
non-competitive environment.  By the way, right after the law passed,
guess who just announced a rate increase.


--
    @@               Larry Rogers               *
   @@@               Larry_Rogers@dg.com        *   Big Brother
   @@@ &&&           larry@boris.webo.dg.com    *   is Watching
    @@ &&            Data General  508-870-8441 * 

The opinions contained herein are my own, and do not reflect the
opinions of Data General or anyone else, but they should.

"Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the bug"
   Dire Straits
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: mcaldon@igc.apc.org (McAldon International Inc.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton Economic Conference
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:01:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec20.115703.13533@news.colu:1881686932:cdp:1588800067:000:451
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Dec 20 17:01:00 1992


|- Government regulation is stiffling small business
                            ^^^^^^^^^
Somebody invented a neat word here, much better than the dictionary
version it replaced.

|       DMcKenzie        |           FIENDISH DELIGHTS          |    
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |       Setting the alarm to 4 AM      |
|                        |    before checking out of the motel  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: kme@node_1f11c.bnr.ca (Ken Michael Edwards)
Subject: Re: PC lives
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:10:19 GMT

Politically Correct (and yes - PC) has recently been used in the Entertainment Industry.  This was personally observed when Michael Douglas used this in an interview with Barbara Walters.

By default, the term 'Politically Correct' refers to the setting of a single view that is accepted.  The Entertainment and News Media of this country has set forth what those views will be.

For example, views abortion (PRO-Choice, ANTI-abortion), the Enviroment, the evils that any republician does (when Ted Kennedy can treat women with such contempt, and then JUDGE Clarence Thomas, and also be supported by NOW, and other WOMEN's ogranizations ??), Animal-RIGHTS ??, and the list goes on and on.

NO, I am not am evil person set on destorying women's lives, destorying our world with senseless polution, believe that all republicians are good (look at Packwood), for malicious torture of animals, etc.  that is laughable.

What I am saying is there is bias, the media is intentionally setting out to influence the thoughts of this country's citizens.  We must be objective enough
to question everything, and realize that every story has at least two sides.

By the way,  when there is an attempt to CONTROL people, even in the most subline ways, there will be reaction.  The movements of the sixties is a perfect example.

One final thought, what is your opinion on drugs, crime, poverity, sickness, death in this country? Is it exactly the same as ANYONE else's ?  Would EVERYONE in this country agree with you ?  Although thses are a few of the issues that face us, most of us have definite ideas what is 'right' and 'wrong', however these ideas may not apply to your neighbor, parents, etc.  What right does the 
media have to decide what is right or wrong with our society ??
-- 
======================================================================

Ken M. Edwards, Bell Northern Research, Research Triangle Park, NC
(919) 481-8476 email: cnc23a@bnr.ca    Ham: N4ZBB

All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of
my employer or co-workers, family, friends, or dog.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 02:59:21 GMT

exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson, xt-dL) writes:

>In article 19383@netcom.com, nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>>exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson) writes:
>>
>>> You sure have a lot of nerve 
>>>identifiing your self with us considering all of the stuff you've 
>>>spewed that are hateful vindictive things. Name calling went out
>>>in elementary school.
>>
>>Uh, didn't some jerk recently call a U.S. Senator (and now the Vice President
>>Elect) a "crazy bozo ozone man"?

>Boy, you got your wires crossed. Learn how to read posts or at least remember
>who said what.  I have never said such a thing!

The jerk to whom I was referring is George Bush, who called Gore during
the election a "crazy bozo ozone man" (among other things). My point was
that it is pretty dumb to castigate me for name calling of the thankfully-
soon-to-be-ex-president started it.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:23:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1992Dec29.211245.12184@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <nate.997@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>>    I would certainly agree with you if you want to make the point that 
>>Europeans have been brutal and  efficient conquerors, but I'm not prepared 
>>on that basis to return everything we have to the previous occupants who 
>>were brutal and efficient conquerors in their own time. Once you open that 
>>can of worms you're not going to reach an end until you run out of recorded 
>>history from which conquerors and their victims can be identified.
>
Most Indian claims these days are based on treaties signed by the U.S.
government when hostilities ended.  The U.S. has already unilaterally
negated all Indian treaties and offered some money in return - take
ir or leave it.  If they leave it, they leave open the possibility
of getting more later.  Native Americans lost the wars and signed
treaties under duress, as most war-ending treaties are.  They merely
ask now that we honor the treaties that we signed.  

Keep in mind that this is not all old history.  The U.S. government
is in the process of taking land from the Western Shoshone at this
very moment.  Unlike most tribes, the Western Shoshone never ceded
their land in a treaty.  They merely agreed to various pass-through
rights.  Those who think that injustices against Indians are a thing
of the past might learn a little about the helicopter-assisted
assault on a cattle ranch a month ago, or so, on Western Shoshone land.

-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:58:25 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1701@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
]
]Well, nobody celebrates Cortez' birthday.  I agree that it`s silly
]to blame the whole thing on Columbus, but he was a rather nasty
]fellow from all accounts, and he was accorded status as the chief
]hero for many years.  Just a bit of pendulum swing, I guess.

No, it is part of a concerted effort to destroy american
culture by deconstructing it - ie, reinterpreting every cultural value
and cultural myth in a way that is antithetical to the culture. Every
society has its heroes and its heroic myths. Today, however, we see almost
every value and hero or heorine that Americans have held dear reviled or 
attacked or deconstructed. At the same time we have strident cries
to create new "politically correct" heroes - my state of Arizona was
vilified and boycotted because we didn't pay proper homage to the
new, politically correct hero - Martin Luther King. We see groups in
LA treating Rodney King as a hero! They myth of Chief Seattle has
arisen (a total fabrication). As long as the hero(inne) is politically correct
(ie, AT LEAST not white or not male), we are pressured to recognize
him/her. If the cultural icon did anything that offends today's
sensibilities, we are expected to vilify him.

There is no reason whatsoever to revile Columbus. The guy is long dead.
The attacks on Columbus are really attacks on our "evil" society
for having destroyed some ideal "native american" society 500 years ago.
What foolishness!

While historians may continually debate and analyze all of these
issues, it becomes polemical when it reaches the level of public debate
and demonstrations. It becomes politically correct when the Smithsonian
Institution feels that it cannot put on a Columbus exhibit without
pointing out everything wrong with the Spanish conquest and everything
good about native American culture.

This Orwellian attempt at thought control is (hopefully) doomed to failure,
as the forces of reaction rise to combat it. Unfortunately, those forces
often mirror the PC forces in their intolerance and their willingness to
use offensive tactics. PC folks out there... look at the extreme religious
right - you are looking in a mirror!
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:51 PST
Subject: Re: INTERIOR SEC'Y; FAX CLINTON *TODAY*
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1588800068:cdp:1588800069:000:70
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 24 16:51:00 1992


Hi Steve
Looks like you got your Xmas wish!  Merry Christmas!
Dorothy

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:17:02 GMT

In article <nate.975@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>(Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

[deleted stuff]
>>>PC is alive and well, don't believe otherwise.
>
>>       Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo.
>
>>       Nothing I can't stand more than whining from someone who's
>>belligerently aggressive.
>
>    Perhaps. I'm not sure though whether you meant to include as 
>"belligerently aggressive" those misguided activists who are attempting 
>to rewrite the history of North America with Chris Columbus as the chief 
>villian. If they need a villian then why not pick on Cortez or one of the 
>other conquistadors?

Yeah sure, and while we're at it, lets add on Cooke and what he did to the
Hawaiians.  He's a white male and new exactly what pox, VD and other
wonderful diseases his men had would do to the natives, thereby clearing the 
way for Hyatt and Hilton to eventually steal their land and sell it to the
Japanese. 8-;

(Just for those that don't get sarcasm, I'm agreeing with Nathan.  It's a
pretty cowardly thing to lay the blame on a single man when two cultures clash
and one is decimated out of sheer ignorance.)

>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Appointments & Perceptions
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A75CDEAB72010826@alimac28.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:03:07 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:01:50 GMT

I read in the papers today that Clinton is supposedly taking a
lot of heat from women's groups for not appointing more women
to his cabinet.  What groups are protesting?   It seems to me
the women's groups will be slammed for protesting, as it will
appear that they are in favor of quota appointments.  Does
anyone have any more info on this?

Clinton, smart pol that he is, appears to have preemptively
turned this to his advantage.  He 'got angry' at the groups
(again - what groups?) and accused them of being bean counters.
 He seems to gain points in the media for being willing to
stand up to one of the traditional dem. interest groups.   

TerriB.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19160 alt.rush-limbaugh:12358 alt.president.clinton:1283
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: PC lives
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:39:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
: >green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
: >: PC is alive and well, don't believe otherwise.       
: 
: >Mock trial of Christopher Columbus?  Well, that certainly has a 
: >PC ring to it.  Did the "trial" do some harm that you know of?
: 
:     To the extent that it is an attempt to revise history, I believe that 
: it does a disservice to anyone who buys into the revised version of history.
: 
: >Was it not merely an attention-getting ploy/historical inquiry?
: 
:     It was certainly an attention-getting ploy, but as far as historical 
: inquiry is concerned, I'm not convinced.
: 
: >Is Columbus, for some reason, off-limits to critics?  
: 
:     No, however I believe that native American advocates will lose  
: credibility if they attempt to blame Colombus for things which were 
: beyond his control.
: 
: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

I agree with you here, Nathan- however, the fact is that

Columbus Day has come to be a celebration of the European conquest
of the America's; the mock trial (of which I know nothing, by the

way) may have been intended as a counterweight to this, and a way

of expressing alternative views.

Bill   u
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 06:18:11 GMT
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1hdardINNa5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes...
> 
>In a previous article, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) says:
> 
>>In article <BzqsBM.CGs@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes...
>>>A Feminist was babbling about him needing more women than the past three
>>>administrations, which totaled three.  Well, we have Lynn Martin as
>>>Secretary of Labor, Barbara Franklin as Secretary of Commerce, and Carla
>>>Hills as Trade Rep.  That's three women in top level positions already.
>>>Blacks? UN Ambassador.  Hispanics?  Manual Lujan, Secretary of Interior.
>>>Can someone explain how Slick's Cabinet is going to be more diverse than
>>>Bush's?
>>
>>The feminist was complaining about CABINET positions, Carla Hills
>>and the UN ambassador aren't in the cabinet.  First of all, Manny Lujan
> 
> At least TRY to get informed about the issues you are discussing.
>Mr. Clinton has decided to make UN ambasador a cabinet level position.
>After reading this far down in your post it became clear you didn't
>know what you were talking about. (1 sentence and you blew it). Don't
>you read the paper?

I hate when people accuse someone of being uninformed and are completely
way off base themselves.  Try taking some reading and comprehension classes 
next time.  What I said is correct.  In Bush's administration the UN ambass-
ador isn't cabinet level. Since it's Bush's admin. that I'm talking about in
that sentence, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Clinton will 
make it a cabinet level position.  I didn't blow anything, I saw the press 
conference where Clinton says this.  I indicated this in my original post:

>4 women: HHS, Attorney General, Energy, and UN ambassador (elevated to cabinet
>         level by Clinton as it was during Eisenhower's administration)

sigh,
  Chris




Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Mon, 21 Dec 92 09:45:03 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:48:40 GMT

In article <991@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Yes Norman I did.  And I recall quite distinctly his numerous claims
>that "we have a plan to grow the economy"  and I also remember very
>clearly, his being asked to refute the claims of his opponents, both
>Perot and Bush, that his plan was nothing more than pandering, and
>promises and lacked any hard numbers or specifics; to which he replied
>that was not true and his "plan was very specific and detailed" and
>all we and the reporters had to do was look.
>
>There never was a plan for the economy, only a plan to get elected. 

OK Paul, keep deluding yourself...ignore the fact that this plan, although
Clinton claimed the numbers would probably change (public record), is
very detailed in program content (unlike Bush's which had no numbers
or program content). While your at it, continue ot be so naive to think
that a candidate under such an attack is going to say "yes, I admit that
my plan has no content but is only pandering", even if it were true.

The people who looked at the plan who actually count, the economists,
endorsed the plan, not for the numbers or schedule which Clinton and
the economists admitted must surely change, but for the programmatic
actions and philosophy and the comprehensive nature of it. Read the
statements made by some of this countries leading economists before
you continue to embarass yourself.

Finally, why don't you at least admit that your ramblings mean nothing
until he actually takes office and presents legislation proposals to
congress. The proof is in the putting, not in the predicting.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.politics.kibo:301 alt.fan.mike-jittlov:1081