From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: irrelevancies (was Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!)
Keywords: Braun,Feinstein,Boxer,Gore,Legalization,Hemp
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:38:28 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <1992Nov4.233331.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> maxwell@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:
>[I reformatted, put chi.general back in followups]  
And I had to remove it and a couple of others.

>Somewhere along the line a couple of other lines I posted got chopped: I also
>said thank you to the voters of Illinois-- the first state in the nation *ever*
>to elect a black female as a U.S. Senator, and to the voters of California-- the
>first state *ever* to elect two women as U. S. Senators at the same time. Both
>states also voted for Clinton/Gore instead of Bush/Quayle, bucking recent
>historic trends. 

Now, this is what my new subject is about.  In a vision of equality
and people doing what they can as people, it seems to me that the
gender and race of those we elected is completely irrelevant.  It
sounds nice to cheer "yay - a <insert physical charaterization here>
got elected!!!!", but is it not FAR FAR more important what the
elected people THINK and plan on doing?

I don't care if the elected official is green, purple, blue,
male, female, or a eunich for that matter.  The important thing
is what they think about the issues, and how they think 
about them (ie. for future issues).  If their physical characteristics
are so important, than they are so much figureheads instead of
achievers.

>I'm sure George Bush was all set to end the Wo(s)D, sign an executive order
>telling the DEA to lay off AIDS patients who grow their own, sign another one
>telling the DEA to stop any further forfieture proceedings. I'm sure George
>Bush was going to have Dan Quayle network w/ congress and industry to propose
>fast-track legislation legalizing hemp for biomass, forest friendly paper,
>domestic textiles, oil-seed and food. I heard that Bush was going to cite
>George Washington's sinsemilla growing experiments (during a speech scheduled
>for next 4th of July at NORML's annual Washington DC Smoke-In across the street
>from the white house) and urge the passage of a grow-your-own-for-fun bill.

I'm sure brother Clinton is all set to do these things, too.
Sure.

Some comedian said it like this:  They guy was dumb enough
to get hold of some weed, but not even inhale the stuff.
I sure hope he didn't pay for his smoke.  Now, lets see
how much stuff he makes US pay for which won't do anyone
any good either...

>Dianne Feinstein knows about the benifits of medicinal hemp.

That's at least one senator.  But like I said, this has nothing
whatsoever to do with her sex.

>I know that Carol Moseley Braun has stated time and time again that she thinks
>"chasing pot smokers is stupid ..." I know that her opponent tried use that
>stance against her and *lost*. I know she never backed down from her decrim
>stance.

>I'm *sure* Senator Elect Braun will be hearing from an Illinois proponent of
>Hemp relegalization.  I *know* for a *fact* that Braun was recently given her
>own personal free copy of _The Emperor..._.

Also, this is nice.  Now, are there any other senators out there
who are at all interested in this issue?  You've only told us
about the women.  

>   ...I was planning on voting for Chef RA, but that was before
>   I found out Al Gore was soft on hemp.  Three days ago, while
>   campaigning in Wisconsin, as Gore bought a copy of _The Emperor
>   Wears No Clothes_ by Jack Herer from a well-known activist, the
>   candidate said, "You have to trust us on this hemp thing."

This sounds so unlikely with him on the coattails of Clinton.
Those 100k cops and boot camps...

>I also know that the people of this country just voted for two admitted pot
>smokers as the nest leaders of the free world.

>Can you even *begin* to imagine these things happening in the 1984 or 1988
>elections?

It would have seemed even more likely, at least in the 70s, maybe.
Except that then, these guys were still just kids.

>These are a few of the reasons I'm glad to see George Bush lose the election.

I am, too.  I just worry that now that we've had just a little
tiny bit of economic recovery, Clinton is going to go economic
activist on us and blow it really badly. 
I guess we'll have to see what happens.  I really would have
liked to see more coverage of the Libertarians.  It was not
like they really were going to win, but their stance on a
variety of issues, like the WOD and the economy would really
have injected the debates and discussions with some interesting
contrast to the others, who for the most part, are all about
the same.

>You can sit there whining and crying with the doomed, or you can
>make things better for everyone. 

Never stop.  It only the beginning.  (Just don't ask me what it
is the beginning of...)

--David
-- 
+++ David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)  *** PGP key avail.! *** +++
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs