HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Double standard
Date: 26 Dec 92 15:34:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
: In article <1992Dec18.095241.3606@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
: >  Do you know anything at all about Cisneros? (Maybe you just know what
: >Rush Limburger says.) Have you ever read anything written by him, or listened
: >to any of his speeches? If you have, you would know that Al Gore is right
: >on the money.  Unlike Bush, so far Clinton has named one top notch appointment
: >after another.  As for a "double standard", you seem to forget that the Senate
: >is not made up of 100 Democrats.  It's been widely reported today that the
: >Republicans in the Senate are gearing up to give all the appointments you 
: >mentioned a hard time.  
: 
: Rumblings I've heard suggest that the Senate (including many democrats)
: will fight the confirmation of Benson. I understand he's respected, but
: not thought of very highly.
: 
: 						- greg

He's generally considered able and intelligent, but he's been deep
in the pocket of the Texas oil industry for many, many years, and
his objectivity and independence are in doubt.  I don't think 
there'll be much chance of shooting him down, though.

Bill   
: 
: -- 
: Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
: Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
: Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
: Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:44:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Dec29.005825.5906@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John Moore) writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>
>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!

A simple transposition exposes John's argument for what it is:

	"There is no reason whatsoever to revile Hitler.  The guy is long dead.
	The attacks on Hitler are really attacks on our "evil" society
	for having destroyed some ideal "Jewish" society 50 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.

Oh, yes, John, you're so right.  We should simply accept without question
the traditional view of Columbus promulgated by the "manifest destiny"
historians.  We should certainly NOT have "public debate"--what a thought!
Someone might change their mind!

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.

Some would say that this is simply an attempt at providing a more balanced
treatment.

>This Orwellian attempt at thought control is (hopefully) doomed to failure,
>as the forces of reaction rise to combat it.

The only thing Orwellian is John's desire to control debate on the proper
historical role of Columbus.  

>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)

Jeff Shallit
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Year of the woman
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:45:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Yep, this was the year of the woman, all right.  Just goes to show women
can do it better than men:

Diane Finstein fined $190,000 by the Election Commission for screwing up
her election figures in her ill-fated attemp to become California
Governor.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:30:37 GMT

(Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>How do you explain the mock trial of Christopher Columbus in Minneapolis?

>       One may ask whether or not it was fair, but what would _you_
>prefer? The attitude that the only good Indian is a dead Indian?

    I'm not sure what Brad wants, but what I would prefer would be 
something a little less suggestive of the idea that Columbus was 
personally responsible for the deaths of the tens of millions of pre-
1500's inhabitants of America. Columbus was a sailor, not a mass 
murderer. 

    The arrival of Europeans (and more importantly the arrival of their 
extensive disease pool) was certainly not a high point in the histories 
of those native Americans, but it's very probable that most of the killing 
was done by microparasitic organisms which the Spaniards unknowingly 
carried from the Old World. 

    The long isolation of humans in America and on various islands was 
literally a disaster waiting to happen. Diseases like malaria and small 
pox which appear to have co-evolved with humanity in the Old World were 
completely unknown (and thus devastating) in the New World. This, although 
admittedly tragic, is hardly the fault of Columbus.

>>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?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19077 alt.rush-limbaugh:12236 alt.president.clinton:1260
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 24 Dec 1992 04:21:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) says:

>Hmm, Clinton wants a Cabinet that represents the diversity of America.
>So, how about we have about 40% of his appointees be Republican?
>
>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?
>
>Actually, what I see in the Clinton/Algore Cabinet is a bunch of Slick
>and Hillary's academic friends, and a bunch of Carter retreads.  Some
>change.

 Yep it looks as though the first campaign promise has been broken,
and the guy hasn't even been sworn in yet. At least Bush was 3 years
into his term before breaking his tax promise. 
 From Clinton's view point his cabinet does look like America. I really
like all this change were seeing.... Before you know it ole' Slick Willie
will be telling us about his brother Billy and telling us of his plans to 
move to Plains Georgia.
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:53:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

bill@bcserv.wustl.edu (Eldridge (Bill)) writes:
: 
: From a karmic standpoint it's quite understandable.  If two criminals
: fight, no one worries much that one gets killed.  If people are at the
: level of rats and dogs, we shouldn't worry so much about which rat
: won and which rat was killed.  It just happened.  And we can't judge
: history solely by modern values.  People 500 years from now will
: laugh at us for being so barbaric.  What can we do?  The best we
: can.  One strategy that helps is to fully recognize that our
: heroic image of history is fatally flawed.  Every leader from ...
: (you know who) to Gandhi to M.L.K. has some serious warts. Our
: mono-cultural viewpoint no longer exists, so now we have to look
: for new semi-perfect heros who are good for society and WoMankind
: as a whole - a pretty tough thing amongst petty squabbling nations
: and egos.  But hey, that's what major change is about.  Just as
: Columbus had wandered from a eurocentric morality that wasn't
: robust enough to handle colonialism ethically, our rapidly 
: unifying world requires more robust morals and symbols.  
: -- 
: William M. Eldridge			bill@bcserv.wustl.edu
: Biochemistry Department Box 8231	(314) 362-3436
: Washington Univ. School of Medicine	(314) 362-7183 (fax)
: 660 S. Euclid, St. Louis, MO 6311        

Yup.  That was more or less what I intended to say, but you said it
coherently.  Thanks.
It doesn't really matter who's to "blame" for the sins of the
past, but it does matter that we see things as clearly as possible.
If the politically correct folk succeed in breaking up the 
Columbus hagiography which has passed for history in our popular
culture, then in my opinion they will have performed a service,
despite the fact that their view of the situation is also 
narrow and simplistic.  

Bill 

culture, then they will have pre0
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Clint's appointments
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:30:58 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Hmm, Clinton wants a Cabinet that represents the diversity of America.
So, how about we have about 40% of his appointees be Republican?

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?

Actually, what I see in the Clinton/Algore Cabinet is a bunch of Slick
and Hillary's academic friends, and a bunch of Carter retreads.  Some
change.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: gays in the military
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:05:49 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C06J0r.9y1@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>
>
>Blacks constitute roughly 10% of the population.  According to many estimates,
>homosexuals constitute 5-10% of the population.  This is, within an order
>of magnitude, the same proportion.  
>

First of all, you'd do yourself a big favor by getting some accurate 
numbers.  Kinsey's latest work, as well as the research of other non-
politically motivated "research" says between 2 and 3 percent.

>
>I will repeat the question I have asked three times now:  if it leads to
>so many problems, how come it has NOT led to those problems in the other
>NATO nations which have removed their bans on homosexuality?
>
>John refuses to address this question.

I'll address it.  Who keeps telling you it hasn't caused problems?
Some geek that posts from the Netherlands that keeps refering to a few
rag tag national standing armies that only require a few weeks  
from each soldiers?  Soldiers that can wear their hair anyway they want
smoke some dope if they like, yeah real world class fighting machines. 
If you want to see the problems encountered when a military admits openly
gay soldiers go do a bit of reading on the Israeli experience, that's a
real military,  that fights real wars and can't afford to play little 
social engineering games.  It's the same military that opened combat 
roles to women and reversed the policy in less than a month it was such
a disaster.  

Yup, Israel has a policy of admitting gays find out for yourself how
"well" it's worked out.  And answer this while you're at it; if there
are no problems to be expected if and when we open the US military to
gays, why then does every advocate of the change  (like Bill Clinton)
follow there position statements on the matter with calls for new and
stricter codes of conduct and discipline?  I mean they didn't have to
adopt new rules of conducts and punishment for blacks when they had their
units integrated in to the white units, why is that?

What does Bill Clinton know, that he won't admit to, about the impact 
of this change. 

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:16:14 GMT

As expected, he was too timorous to brave open court, so he did the typical
Republican thing and pardoned those who might otherwise serve to convict him.
What a wimp: afraid of his fellow citizens. What did he have to fear, after
all? Either Weinberger lied to Congress or he did not. Either Weinberger's
notes show that Bush lied to Congress or they do not. If Weinberger and
Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
sh*t was afraid of?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
From: geturner@aer.com. (George Turner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 101
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:52:45 GMT
Organization: Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.

nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
>uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
>the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
>from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.

This is a ridiculous argument. The economy has shown positive signs
of growth for the last four quarters.  Now that the election is over,
the press can finally report some positive facts. These reports just show
how biased and slanted the press coverage is in the United States.
When the press becomes a cheerleader the nation suffers.  The press 
has a responsibility to present the facts, not create them.

I think Bill Clinton was elected mostly because the press created such
a negative view of George Bush. Every problem in the United States has
been blamed on the Republicans.  I think George Bush has done a great
job managing the US economy during a world wide recession.  He has done
all the right things, he has opened our borders and not created barriers
to trade.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: 00066033@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 05:31:53 GMT

In article <1588800070@igc.apc.org>
Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org> writes:
 
>
>
>I have no opinion so far on this except for one thing:  the commentators
>are back talking about "special interest groups" and seem to mean by
>that blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, disabled people, i.e., everybody
>*except* white male heterosexuals, who I guess are just regular folks.
>Has anybody every called white male heterosexuals a "special interest group"
>--surely somebody has, but did she ever get to say it on network TV?
>
Of course not Dorothy. Any group that would claim to represent white
male heterosexuals would be denounced by the leadership of nearly
all special interest groups. Further more, they would be lumped in
with the KKK and other white supremecists.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19148 alt.rush-limbaugh:12340 alt.president.clinton:1273
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: PC lives
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:42:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

: 
: Dumb comeback, IS Martin Luther King Jr. the greatest American to have ever
: lived?  Honor him, yes, but allow him to be the ONLY person to have their
: own private holiday?  PC lives.

Why do people keep repeating this?  Please note:

Christopher Columbus has his own holiday.     
Jesus has his own holiday.
In many Southern states, Robert E. Lee has his own holiday.
The holiday generally celebrated as Presidents Day is still
officially called Washington's Brithday.

MLK is NOT the "only person to have their own private holiday."
Please look up the facts before reciting- many of the things Mr.
Limbaugh says are simply not true.

Bill
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: RE: CORRECT VIEW ON RACIS
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

In article <Qll34zZa.4482.1@ultisol.gsfc.nasa.gov> nobody@dev.null
writes:

[Garbage deleted]

Ya sure Troll, whatever you say.  Unh hunh.  Ya.   whatever.
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: gays in the military
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:31:39 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Waterloo


In article <1992Dec30.042419.2105@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Dec29.034601.28832@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>]In article <1992Dec29.004539.5683@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>]
>]Since there is no RIGHT to participate in the military, why was it important
>]to integrate blacks into the military in the 50s and not important to 
>]integrate gays into the military in the 90s ?
>
>Because blacks constitute a significant segment of the population;
>because blackness is not a behavioral trait.

Blacks constitute roughly 10% of the population.  According to many estimates,
homosexuals constitute 5-10% of the population.  This is, within an order
of magnitude, the same proportion.  

In any event, the number of Jews is probably less than the number of
homosexuals.  By John's reasoning, it would be acceptable to keep Jews
out of the military on sheer numbers alone.

I conclude that John is either ignorant or dishonest.  Which is it, John?

As for "behavioral trait", Orthodox Jews have various behavioral traits.  
Should they be excluded because of this?

>
>And how many times must it be said that having open gays in the military
>leads to a number of problems that having closet gays does not. I will
>not repeat these here.... it has been beaten to death in this thread already.

I will repeat the question I have asked three times now:  if it leads to
so many problems, how come it has NOT led to those problems in the other
NATO nations which have removed their bans on homosexuality?

John refuses to address this question.

>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

Jeff Shallit
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:12:45 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <nate.997@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>    I'm not convinced that this can be a simple matter of assigning blame 
>or making excuses. Passing judgement on historical figures is bound to go 
>on for as long as there are people studying history, but the subject will 
>always boil down to this: there isn't a single square foot of occupied land 
>anywhere on this planet that hasn't been conquered or changed hands in one 
>way or another during the past 4,000 years. Each new empire is built on 
>the foundations of those which came before it. 

>    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.

It's clearly not feasible, or even desirable, at this point, to give everything
we have back and then leave and try to find someplace else to live.  But we can
at least acknowledge the truth, and stop glorifying the conquerors of the past.
And since the conquered peoples are still here and unassimilated, it would not
be a case of "running out of recorded history", if we did give them back some
land.  I guess the Indian reservations are just that; I don't know if it's
sufficient or not.  Land aside, the least we can do is show them respect.
Glorifying and celebrating the conquest and destruction of the native cultures
does not constitute showing respect.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
From: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se (Derek Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:28:29 GMT
Reply-To: exudtn@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

N.B. Hedd,

Oooops. (red faced) Sorry, I thought that your were calling me 
a jerk. I didn't know that the President made that remark.  
In any event name calling is a very low way of expressing
one's self. 

Derek
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19063 alt.rush-limbaugh:12212 alt.president.clinton:1252
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: PC lives
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:20:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>The discussion about PC has a few uninformed that believe PC doesn't
>exist.  So how do you explain Clinton ONLY considering a woman for EPA
>director?  How do you explain Clinton ONLY considering Donna Shalala for
>her job?  (Other than Donna being a longtime, close friend of Hillary's.)
>How do you explain the mock trial of Christopher Columbus in Minneapolis?
>How do you explain the furor over the MLK holiday, when MLK doesn't really
>rate a holiday?  (He's the only, single person with his own holiday, Jefferson,
>Lincoln, Washington, etc. either don't have holiday's or share them.  I don't
>deny the good MLK did, but to single him out is, in effect, saying he is the
>greatest American that has ever lived.)

Personally, I'd rather have my picture on the $500 bill.  Now
THAT is prestige in America.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}