HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally
Organization: ILS
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:50:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.175453.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>      To make matters worse, I then started reading the opinions
> and editorials on the same page -- and all of them are anti-Bush!  
> They are entitled:
>      Bush League Foreign Policy
>      The Loop Tightens around Bush
>      Look at the Record
>      How to Value Families
>      Questions for Bush  (semi-anti-Bush)
>      No Tears for Marilyn  (anti Marilyn Quayle)
> 
> No mention of Clinton is given outside of a draft dodger cartoon!
> This lack of BALANCE makes it harder to believe their
> justification for omission of an anti-Clinton event.  Can any of
> you who believe no bias exists try to explain this?
> 
>      Cary Perttunen
>       
> 

So Cary do you assert that one particular newspaper does not have the right
to publish the editorial views that it sees fit on the editorial page?  Do
you propse a national law of some kind that mandates that every pro
democratic editorial must be followed by a pro-republican editorial.

Would you also deny papers the right to endorse candiadates in the
Editorial section.  After all an editorial is a published expression of the
opinion of editor or publisher,  and is clearly marked editorial rather
then news (though I understand that Rush does not understand the difference
and has quoted editorials selectively as proof of his own views (i.e.
George Will on Al Gore).

Living in Chicago our main newspaper is the Tribune,  the editorial staff
of which tends to endorse Conservatives.  The fact that newpaper editors
can publish editorials without worrying about a Political Correct quota is
an important basis of our Republican Government.  

Perhapes Cary you should buy a few more of the newspapers,  see if Clinton
does not come under attack,  see if letters to the editor agaisnt Clinton
are not published.  Clearly the paper responded to attacks of bias and did
publish a cartoon against Clinton.

I wonder if Rush Relativists understand that bias is a serious charge. 
Granted everyone "intelligent person is going to be biased in some way". 
The assertion that the entire news media is biased, and intentionally or
unintentionally misrepresents that truth in order promoted a certain
political party is so serious,  I for one would like to see soem real
evidence.  Not just the titles of one days editorials in one paper, but
hard long term objective data from a random sample of nations news
providers which shows a clear bias towards the Democratic party and against
the Republicans.
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush Says Jobs are important, Owls are not
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 10:16:26 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

jav@rhiannon.sitka.sun.com (Joyce Vanderpoorten) writes:

> What!!! where does Bush get off making a closed minded statement like
> this - Owls vs. Jobs.   God I hate that man.

Hate is a bit strong.  Pity him.  He's so cynical.  He really believes that
folks will vote for him again simply because he is the President.  Never mind
that he has no record to run on.  He figures that rhetorical nonsense will get
him back in the White House.




>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:5299 alt.politics.homosexuality:5975
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:36:51 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <BuKu0p.8n8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher) writes:
> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 
> [Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah and possible association with homo-
>  sexuality]
> 
> :      I neither have a Greek New Testament nor do I read Greek, but
> : the English translations I have for Jude 7 seem to be inconsistent
> : with your interpretation.  Can you help resolve this inconsistency?
> 
> Jude 7:
> 
> : Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the
> : angels, they committed fornication and followed unnatural lusts;
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : and they paid the penalty in eternal fire, an example for all to see.
> 
> (The passage in Genesis about the destruction of S & G has been posted
>  already elsewhere.)
> 
> One possible interpretation of this passage would be that Jude is
> giving a warning against going to sexual excess; i.e. orgies are not
> Good Things.  As I recall, the townspeople of Sodom just wanted to
> have sex with the newcomers, not necessarily because those guests were
> men, but because they were new in town, and the townspeople were 
> exceptionally horny and wanted to extend an "appropriate" welcome
> to the new folks.
> 
> The "fornication and ... unnatural lusts" do not necessarily have to
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be interpreted as a slam against homosexuality.  The reference is
> most likely to having sex for sex's sake, rather than having sex as
> an expression of love.
> 
> --
     I thank you for your interpretation.  Let me ask you this,
what is the difference between an "unnatural lust" and a
"natural lust?"

     Cary
From: kretz@remus.rutgers.edu (Kevin Kretz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Date: 12 Sep 92 15:59:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Sep12.021908.7403@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:


] My sister was a captain in the army for nearly four years.  The only
] time she lived and showered with other women was in basic training.
] The rest of the time she lived in a condo by herself in a yuppie
] apartment complex.

This is certainly not typical, and, more importantly, it is irrelevant. 



]  How is the military any different from high school and college
] students living and showering with each other?  You really think all
] the men in your dorm or your frat are hetero?  If you join a sports
] club, are you going to make sure all the men are hetero before you use
] the locker room?  How do you plan to do that?

     It's _not_ any different.  If there's a "differently aligned"
person in a frat or at school and nobody knows, then nobody cares.
It's when people _know_ that person next to them in the shower
might have things in mind that trouble them that they don't want them
there. And they have every right not to have to shower with
homosexuals.
 
I'm sure there are many "alternative-sexual-outlet-seekers" in the
armed forces.  As long as they do not outwardly display that at work,
they'll stay.  Nobody seeks to actively purge them from the army, a la
Salem witch trials.  

                                                    Kevin
  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 19:13:55 GMT

In <5181@news.duke.edu>, Emil Chuck writes:

(Who would be nominated by Bill Clinton for:)

>Secretary of State
   Willie Brown
>Secretary of Defense
   Pat Schroeder
>Secretary of Treasury
   Here we need the person who headed up the House Bank.
>Attorney General
   How about the attorney who successfully argued the Miranda case?
>Secretary of the Interior
   Al Gore will want the president of Earth First!
>Secretary of Health and Human Services
   Teddy "Pay or Play" Kennedy or the president of ACT-UP!
>Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
   Maxine Waters
>Secretary of Energy
   Paul Ehrlich
>Secretary of Labor
   The current president of the AFL/CIO
>Secretary of Education
   How about the head of the NEA?  More money for the educrats..oops, I mean
   for the schools and our children!

>Chief of Staff
   Ron Brown, head of the DNC
>National Security Advisor
   Sam Nunn--if they decide he isn't too moderate.
>Joint Chief of Staff (military)
   How about the groups protesting the Gulf War?
>Surgeon General
   Ralph Nader--telling us that EVERYTHING will kill us!
>Director of Office of Management and Budgeting (?)
   John Kenneth Galbraith
>Federal Reserve Board Chairman
   In the Clinton administration, you'd better say ChairPERSON...
>"Drug Czar"
   I don't know--but whoever it is will tolerate pot smoking as long as
   the people don't inhale.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: The new PC word for Indian/Native American
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 01:08:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.175010.17870@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>I have heard that the new PC word for Indian/Native-American is
>"American." Is this true? Am I no longer PC if I use Native-American
>(ie, use of that word now makes me an oppressor)? Does this make
>me not an American, or am I to refer to myself as an AmeriKan?

I don't, what's the term for Israeli settlers in the West Bank et. al.?
We probably become "settlers in the occupied territories of North America".

Dare I even think that this might instead be a dropping of the distinction
between Indian/Native Americans and other legal residents of the U.S.?
Probably too dangerous to think that.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)
From: sdt8s@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Steve Tilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The new PC word for Indian/Native American
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:45:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

john@anasazi.com  writes:
> I have heard that the new PC word for Indian/Native-American is
> "American." Is this true? Am I no longer PC if I use Native-American
> (ie, use of that word now makes me an oppressor)? Does this make
> me not an American, or am I to refer to myself as an AmeriKan?
> 
> Inquiring mind wants to know...
> 
> -- 
> 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
> - Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
> - to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Hey, I never cared for the use of "Native American" to describe
American Indians anyway. I'm not Indian (well, a little
Cherokee) but I AM a native American; I was born in this
country a bit over twenty-one years ago. On the other hand,
American Indians did not suddenly pop into existence on this
continent; they migrated too, albeit a few thousand years
earlier than Europeans.

As for their being called Americans, I guess now I have to call
myself what I am: an "oppressive white eurocentric male." Does
it help my status any that I'm a bit gravitationally
challenged? I didn't think so. When you're a white male, I
guess the term is "overfed on the stolen abundance of others."

On the other hand, maybe now we can ALL just be Americans...

Steve
--
You are a true believer. Blessings of the state, blessings of the masses.
Thou art a subject of the divine, created in the image of man by the masses,
for the masses. Let us be thankful we have an occupation to fill. Work 
hard...increase production...prevent accidents...and be happy. (THX-1138)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: RICHH:  SHORT NON-PC P.J. O'ROURKE QUOTE
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 05:13:53 GMT

In article <txmnqbb.richh@netcom.com> richh@netcom.com (richh) writes:

>P.J. O'Rourke(whom I just missed at a reading and book-signing at Border's 
>a few months ago) explains why he is not a liberal:

>(I paraphrase)

>"Say what you want about the Nazis, no woman has ever had a fantasy about
>being tied up and beaten by a man dressed as a liberal."

The full quote, is anyone is interested, was about being called a 
Nazi by liberals, because of his political views. He said he didn't mind,
because:
"No one has _ever_ had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually
ravished by someone dressed as a liberal."

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:54:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Sep8.222306.28962@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <92252.42346.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>In <5181@news.duke.edu>, Emil Chuck writes:
>>
>>(Who would be nominated by Bill Clinton for:)
>>>Secretary of Defense
>>   Pat Schroeder
>
>An excellent choice.  Schroeder has repeatedly shown herself to be a
>firebrand in pushing for women's rights in the military.  She also has
>proposed legislation that will stop the military from kicking lesbigay
>people out on the basis of sexual orientation.  Something like 1500
>lesbigay people are kicked out of the military on an annual basis,
>costing American taxpayers millions of dollars to train them, try
>them, and then replace them.  (Of course, who ever said that bigotry
>was cost free?)

Please let me explain to you my reasons for rejecting gays in the 
military.  Bathrooms, showers and dormitories.  Men and women live 
in different quarters for one excellent reason, members of one sex 
are justified in desiring to live without having to worry about 
others, who are sexually interested in those of their sex, looking 
at their bodies.  Gays and lesbians should not be allowed in the 
military because they should not be allowed to live in dormitories 
with others of the same sex, should not be allowed to share bathroom 
facilities with others of the same sex and should not be allowed to 
shower with others of the same sex; just as high school boys should 
not be allowed to share locker rooms with high school girls in gym 
class.

Have you ever considered the reason why men and women do not share 
shower facilities under group living conditions?  Your first 
reaction might be to say, "because men and women are different". I 
would say that the reason is slightly deeper; Men are sexually 
interested in women, and women are sexually interested in men.  People 
should not be required to share facilities with others who may be 
sexually interested in them.  

A final analogy:  A gay man in the military, showering with dozens of 
other men is the same as a heterosexual man showering with dozens of 
women.  Would the women be in favor of the heterosexual man showering 
with them?

Ted


 

-- 
State money should "be provided only to invalids and the elderly"; "teachers 
should be tested for competency.  All curriculums shall focus on the basics in 
high-school requirements...advanced sciences and additional math, English and writing."  --- from _Bloods/Crips Proposal for LA's Facelift_
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5292 alt.sex.bondage:17334 alt.sex:29185 talk.bizarre:29873
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Beating (was Re: RICHH: SHORT NON-PC P.J. O'ROURKE QUOTE)
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:40:32 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: SGI TechPubs

---
tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller) writes:
|I thought it was Ted Kaldis and a tire iron.  (I wonder if
|anyone remembers this from 2 years back other than me.)

The entire net remembers that remark.
Give yourself a cookie and go back to sleep.

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Ted is a sick human being. We shouldn't hate him, we shouldn't make fun 
of him, we shouldn't treat him as a pariah or a net.idiot--above all, we 
shouldn't flame him. We should reach out to him as a brother, with love 
and compassion, and operate on his brain." -- Gene Ward Smith
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Peeking in the Showers (was Re: Clinton's Cabinet)
Organization: (Not Speaking For) Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 07:40:40 GMT

In article <Sep.12.11.59.04.1992.485@remus.rutgers.edu> 
kretz@remus.rutgers.edu (Kevin Kretz) claims:
>In article <1992Sep12.021908.7403@leland.Stanford.EDU>, 
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) recounts:
>
>
>] My sister was a captain in the army for nearly four years. 
>] [...]
>]  How is the military any different from high school and college
>] students living and showering with each other?  You really think all
>] the men in your dorm or your frat are hetero?  If you join a sports
>] club, are you going to make sure all the men are hetero before you use
>] the locker room?  How do you plan to do that?
>
>     It's _not_ any different.  If there's a "differently aligned"
>person in a frat or at school and nobody knows, then nobody cares.
>It's when people _know_ that person next to them in the shower
>might have things in mind that trouble them that they don't want them
>there. And they have every right not to have to shower with
>homosexuals.

While it seems clear that, in this case, what one doesn't know 
won't make him shower with his clothes on (as the old expression
goes), who's problem is it when he does know?  Admittedly, the 
thought of being stared at in the shower makes me a bit edgy 
too, but why is my hangup someone else's problem?  It's my 
neurosis, I should have to deal with it.  

BTW, not to start a PC cloudburst, but people aren't *forced*
into situations where they have to share their shower stalls 
with homosexuals any more than they are with heterosexuals;
community showers are a fact of life for many.  

And there is no "right not to shower..." dammit!  This tendency 
of people to call upon to call upon the magic well of rights 
whenever it seems convenient is a peeve of mine (in case it 
isn't obvious :^).  We are *free* to attempt to do and, 
especially, attempt to avoid doing many things - but all of the 
things that we are free not to do are not rights.  Rights are 
things bestowed by government which we would not have if we 
were totally free (Hobbe's "state of nature" for history fans).  
I'm sure someone will correct me if I've misremembered my 
political philosophy, but I think the distinction is important 
enough to make.

> I'm sure there are many "alternative-sexual-outlet-seekers" in the
>armed forces.  As long as they do not outwardly display that at work,
>they'll stay.  Nobody seeks to actively purge them from the army, a la
>Salem witch trials.  

I'm afraid I was out of town and missed the Big Salem Barbecue,
so I won't comment on that.  But are you sure that homosexuals
aren't being purged from the military?  I heard that they were.
Has anyone kept up on this?

>
>                                                    Kevin

  - Mike "only speaking for (and probably to) himself" B.

  "... Well, we do have adiabatic people, it's just that 
  they're dead." - R. Musselman, in a thermodynamics lecture
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: sierra@ora.com (Mike Sierra)
Subject: Dolls of Color
Organization: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:33:11 GMT

I remember one time when listening to NPR I heard an interview
with one of the actresses from "In Living Color."  She said that,
growing up black, she had few role models to relate to, and that 
all the dolls her parents gave her were white.  Eventually as she 
grew older, her younger sisters had black dolls to play with.
Unfortunately, she pointed out, these were just the same dolls 
with a different coloring.  Now, however, she was gratified to find
dolls on the market that reflected her image of herself.  Instead 
of "colored dolls," these were "dolls of color."  She actually said
that, and she sounded serious.  (It was Terry Gross interviewing.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:27:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.225427.3320@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>
>A final analogy:  A gay man in the military, showering with dozens of 
>other men is the same as a heterosexual man showering with dozens of 
>women.  Would the women be in favor of the heterosexual man showering 
>with them?

This analogy is not complete.  A gay man showering with dozens of straight men
does not have his sexual interest reciprocated, whereas a straight man
showering with several straight women may possibly show a reciprocation in
sexual feelings between the man and the women.  Some of the women may not mind
being looked at.  I think all straight men would be uncomfortable if they were
being eyed down by other men.  Perhaps I'm wrong here.

I knew guys in high school who would not shower in gym because they were afraid
a gay might be in the class.  A number of those went into the military.  If
they thought any one of the people in their unit was gay.....
Armageddon, baby.  Those guys would have killed or at least maimed anyone who
was the least bit suspicious.  They fear what is unknown.

In the above scenario it is relatively easy to point out a man in a shower
full of women.  Not so with a gay in a shower full of straights.  This makes
the threat of my paranoid classmates bludgeoning someone who they believe is
gay even more likely if they know that gays are allowed in the military.  At
the current time under current policy, rednecks like my classmates don't feel 
the need to be belligerent because they have peace of mind knowing that they
don't need to worry about it.  

I think the policy is remaining the way it is because someone high up in the
military probably thinks like my high school acquaintances.  Should it be
changed?  Hard for me to say.  Sounds like an attitude change that needs to be
made nationally at the grade school level before we thrust it on those that
are lagging behind.
  
>Ted

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  Remember to vote this election year,       
 				|  you probably won't get another one. 
I don't claim them, they don't	|  
claim me.......			|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu