HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:46:12 EST
From: <MMB3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Paul Galvanek claims....

Paul Galvanek claims that there are a number of studies showing
that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are psychologically
harmed by their upbringing.  What studies, Paul?  Can you site them?
I do not claim to have done a thorough literature search, so perhaps
you can enlighten the net with your research.  I am, however, familiar
with the work of Charlotte Patterson of the University of Virginia.
She is doing a  longitudinal study of the psychological adjustment of
children of same sex parents.  For the most part she has found no
differences between children of hetero and homosexual parents on psycho-
logical outcome.  There are a few measures where children of straight
parents score better, and a few more measures where children of gay
parents score better.  Her conclusions are that being raised by gay
parents does not psychologically handicap children.  One of the measures
where kids of gay parents were at a disadvantage was felt stress.  This
was interpreted as being due to negative peer experiences and having to
explain their different family.   But the kids of gay parents reported
greater well-being on Eder's Self concept scale.  Stress in childhood is
not necessarily a bad thing, it can lead to better coping strategies.
Anyway, so what are your studies?  Who did them?     Melissa  Brown
 Asst Prof Psychology
Penn State Univ
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18413 alt.president.clinton:1030 talk.politics.misc:63879
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Friday, 11 Dec 1992 11:27:14 MST
From: <IDJMW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
 <92338.155620IDJMW@ASUACAD.BITNET> <MCCARTY.92Dec3193554@aphid.add.itg.ti.com>
 <1992Dec5.072214.365@news.acns.nwu.edu>

yeah yeah, me again

naw, i wouldn't whine, i'd pay you your ten bucks and move to New Zealand



commie pinko democrat... j.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:27:12 GMT

On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
out with the following numbers:

47% Clinton
35% Bush
18% Perot

with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.

In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
on within the stated margin of error.

The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.

P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
Americans believe handguns should be regulated.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:18816 alt.president.clinton:1159 alt.politics.bush:14680 sci.econ:9463 talk.politics.misc:64693
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: re: Paul Galvanek claims....
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:29:16 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:32:57 GMT

In article <791@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>Is it?  Honestly I don't understand why you're reading all this 
>stuff into what I've written.  I have said only that the idea put forth
>by another poster, that what ever kids are taught is normal is what 
>they'll think is normal when they grow up.  My personal experience 
>(which is really my observations of my wife's experieince) is ample 
>proof of my assertion.  
>
>Specificly now, the poster said that if you teach kids that same gender
>parenting and relationships are normal, that that is what they'll 
>believe.  Her and her sister's experience flat out refute that assertion.
>They were taught it as kids, they lived it as kids and they utterly 
>reject the idea that same gender parenting is normal.  It's really
>just that simple.
>
>That also doesn't automatically mean the  
>opposite is true ( that all kids raised in these enviroments and taught
>that philosophy will reject it) and even to the degree that it is true
>it doesn't follow that it's a good thing.  
>
>Kids are raised in households were the mothers are beaten regularly and
>some of those kids will grow up thinking it's "noraml".  Is that okay
>to?  If you expose kids to just about anything at an early enough age
>a certain percentage of them will grow up thinking it's "normal" does
>that make it right?  Because that's exactly the arguement behind program
>like Children of the Rainbow. 

I'm sorry Paul, but this is a load of double-speaking crapola.

What you have said above is that what it comes down to is that your
personal homophobic biases and your one data point
lead you to the "conclusion" that it is
a bad thing and you won't be swayed by any amount of REAL proof
to the contrary. It's not that I didn't think you were closed-minded
and naive before, it's just that you have confirmed it for me.

Thanks.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:55:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

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

-- 
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: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: RE: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

-> Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed
-> to put together anything that even modestly resembels "America".
-> Unless

No no no you pathetic fool you.  Why I oughta.....

The Clinton Cabinet to date (Sunday) resembles America.  It has women,
men, old, young, blacks, etc.
-> Pathetic fools like you may see diversity in selecting the proper
-> balance of politically correct skin tones and genitals but the truth
-> is that to date ALL of Bill's appointments reflect one view point,
-> one ideology and one very far left political philosophy, regardless
-> of the the genetic make up of the people appointed.  Not so much as
-> an honest days work amongst

The people that Clinton has appointed are most CERTAINLY NOT a
reflection of one view point as you, Paul Galvanek, so incorrectly
state.  For example, there's congressman Leon Panetta (sp) from the
Monterey, CA district.  During the campaign, he was very much against
the fiscal views that Clinton had proposed.  Mr. Panetta said that "it
would not add up."  Well, Clinton has now made him head of the OMB and
Clinton said at the news conference, "Well, maybe Leon can teach me how
to add."  So you see, Paul, you are incorrect.  Not me.
-> Like John Mclaughlin is heard to have said after Clinton aides
-> expressed "shock" over the public reaction to Bill's gays in the
-> military comments; Bill Clinton is the first President in American
-> history whose term can be called a failure, even before he takes
-> office.

Well then, I guess that makes John Mclaughlin just as much of a fool as
you have proven yourself to be.  But that's okay, just go on with your
sore *loser* and homophobic ways.  America has room for fools like you.
                                                                  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: coleman@kirkland.East.Sun.COM (Rob Coleman -- Sun IR Development)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Political Power--Why the quotas?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:33:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. - BDC
Distribution: world
Reply-To: coleman@kirkland.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: kirkland.east.sun.com

In article <1992Dec18.052638.19343@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>[. . .]  I argue that, based on his perception, the
>employer should pick the best one from the crop, disregarding such
>matters as race.  Clinton has stated unambiguously that race is one of
>his criteria.  [. . .]

David,

Race is a legitimate criterion for selection in to a public (or private)
sector job.

In a perfect world, we would not have to be concerned about hiring based
upon race or sex.  Many people feel that equality between the races and the sexes has been reached and thus, quotas are unfair and unnecessary.  

The fact remains that we do not live in a perfect world.  In the United
States, women still make about 70% of what their male counterparts make.
In Germany, people who are different are being attacked solely because they
are different.  In this country, people will riot because they feel that
their race is being treated unfairly.  Most people think that equality has 
not been reached, and that in fact there is quite some distance to go.  

It is this perception that is important.  A woman could be the very just,
but if the population thinks she is being unjust, they will dislike her.

Thus, in order to make everyone happy, it would be prudent for Bill Clinton 
to take into consideration race and sex.  He should work hard at making the
best selections for his cabinet, while at the same time ensuring that his
selections, "look like America".  I am not avocating that he be forced
to make selections based upon race and sex.  However, when he finishes with
his cabinet selections, it should be representative of the United States.  
It should be about half women, it should have some minorities in it and it
should be mostly white (80% of the United States is Caucasian).

Bill Clinton should not (and better not) make poor selections solely to
get minorities into his cabinet.  I feel quite confident that there are
more than enough qualified (top notch) minorities to fill his cabinet.

Back to my original point:

If I am CEO of a company, where 95% of the executives are white males,
I'd better be prepared to prove that I am not discriminating against 
minorities.  However, if the company is racially mixed and various
minorities are well represented in the upper echelons of the management,
then I should feel good that I am treating people fairly and equitably.

Bill Clinton should aim to be equitable.  It appears to me that he is
so endeavoring.

Rob Coleman
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:26:16 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:

>Like John Mclaughlin is heard to have said after Clinton aides expressed
>"shock" over the public reaction to Bill's gays in the military comments;
>Bill Clinton is the first President in American history whose term can
>be called a failure, even before he takes office. 

Which shows how low-caliber Mclaughlin is.  What a stupid thing to say!

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jonesek@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Erik Reid Jones)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:35:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.213615.10521@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <cornell.723757331@vivaldi> nobody writes:
>>jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>
>>> Most straight men look with disgust at the activities gays enjoy. 
>>
>>All activities? Like bowling? Eating lunch? Reading news on the
>>computer? Holidays at home? Time with the family? Basketball games?
>>Seems kind of strange to look at these activities with discust.
>>
>>> The homosexual life style is simply abhorrent to heterosexuals.
>>
>>What lifestyle?
>
>Two words.  Gay bathouses.
>
>Ted

Sorry, but the homosexuals weren't the first ones to come up
with this idea.  (Take a look at ancient Roman history for
confirmation.)  And throughout the history of Europe and
America there have been thousands of well-publicized brothels,
where the top statesmen of the day went to 'relax.'  It's
not the bathhouses which offend you, Ted -- it's the fact
that they're gay bathhouses.  The heterosexual community hs
has historically been far more guilty of places for large
numbers of people to gather and have sex than has the homo-
sexual community.  So why is it, then, that you can use gay
bathhouses to condemn the homosexual community, but not use
whorehouses and brothels to condemn the heterosexual community?
Come on, Ted, admit that this is just irrational homophobia;
it's the first step.  (Trust me, just four short years ago I
almost threw a punch at a guy who made a pass at me.  Accept-
ance takes work, but it is possible.)

Erik Jones


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:02:33 GMT

In article <596@blue.cis.pitt.edu> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1144.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
>>nothing to do with racism.  Bill's cabinet will be the most diverse
>>cabinet ever, and it's good to see.
>
>Sorry, but Bill's major appointments are nearly done and he's failed 
>to put together anything that even modestly resembels "America".  Unless
>of course you actually believe that the majority of Americans that self
>identify as conservative are really closet liberals who favor socialism
>
>Pathetic fools like you may see diversity in selecting the proper balance
>of politically correct skin tones and genitals but the truth is that to
>date ALL of Bill's appointments reflect one view point, one ideology and
>one very far left political philosophy, regardless of the the genetic 
>make up of the people appointed.  Not so much as an honest days work amongst
>that collection of ivory tower academics and career politicians. 

Yeah? So? You don't get it, do you? Bill Clinton won the election, and
that means that he gets to appoint as many progressives and liberals to
the cabinet and other positions of power as he wants. How many socialists
did Reagan and Bush appoint to their cabinets?

>Like John Mclaughlin is heard to have said after Clinton aides expressed
>"shock" over the public reaction to Bill's gays in the military comments;
>Bill Clinton is the first President in American history whose term can
>be called a failure, even before he takes office. 

Fair enough. I myself put as much faith in John Mclaughlin as I put in
Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannon and Ronald McDonald. As for gays in the millitary,
the sooner the better. Yes I know that means that EVERYONE will serve in
the army when/if we get into a war and the draft gets going. Still, we
need to let qualified people serve in the millitary and get rid of all these
idiotic stereotypes we've set up because we're too afraid that our self
respect will be taken away from us. 

>America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
>Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
>we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  

America HAS gone through quite a change. I'm very much looking forewards to
a Clinton administration. He's given me a lot of hope for America's future
so far, and he's not even in office yet!!

>The ivory tower
>is rebuilt, communism lives and it's advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 

Clinton socialist? I guess Reagan didn't know what he was talking about when
he praised the then-Governor's economic policies!

Lost Boy

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Paul Galvanek claims....
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 15:33:20 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:36:54 GMT

In article <660@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>I said that people should read the studies cited in the state of
Florida's
>lawsuit, the one intended to keep gays from adopting children.  The
Clarinews 
>article about this case pointed to numerous studies implying
psychological
>harm to children raised in same sex households.  The suggestion that
these
>studies exist is one that I assume the Florida State Attorney General's
office
>is making.  So I'd suggest you write them or get a copy of the briefs
filed
>in the case ( I do believe there a matter of public record) and search
them out 
>for yourself if you're interested.

Since Melissa is not making these outrageous claims, the onus is not on
her to
do so. It is on you. Just because a lawsuit states the existence of SOME
studies
proves nothing. Who did them...how comprehensive are they...was the
organization
that did them well-respected...was the organization that did them
biased...
were the results published in a refereed journal...are there studies to
the contrary
(Melissa found one). 

>
>I won't bother doing so because as I stated, I have personal experience
with 
>the subject and know well the impact these living arrangement can have
on 
>children.  So, nothing any study, complete with arbitrarily selected
"healthy
>emotional make up / icky emotional make up" and aggregate statistics
tells
>tells me is going to impact my opinion one tiny smidgen.

Sorry, but any scientist worth his salt will tell you that conclusions
made
using one (or a small number) of data points should be dismissed until a
statistical study is made. This is especially true for social science
research. Furthermore, the definition of "damage" has to be rigorously
defined before any conclusions can be stated.

The fact that your opinion is "cast in stone" proves to me that you are
too emotionally attached to your homophobic opinions to be objective.

>
>I know what my eyes have seen and my ears have heard, and I knows what
>I knows.  And some how I doubt my experience is all that unique.

Some how, I doubt you are experienced enough or objective enough to know.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:40:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.070500.15273@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>]>Why? The "out" homosexual will be a specially protected species, and
>]>complaints against him will likely be ignored because they will be seen as
>]>"gay bashing." I can just imagine the outcry in the press and from gay
>]>activist groups the first time a gay is accused of sexual harassment.
>]
>]The same arguments were used regarding "racial harassment".  The military is
>]dealing with such cases reasonably well.  I think they could do as well in
>]this case.
>No, they were not. When the military was integrated, blacks were not
>made a specially protected species. It is only in todays [sic] intolerant
>PC world that charges of non-PC harassment are used to harass people.

Once again, John's lack of knowledge of history shows.

When the military was integrated, bigots like John made *exactly the
same argument*.  They said that blacks would be protected by groups
such as NAACP, that all transgressions by blacks would go unreported
for fear of racism charges, etc.

It didn't happen then, and I don't see any reason to believe it would
happen now.

There's a full page ad in today's [Dec. 15] New York Times that shows quite
clearly how the bigots of today simply repeat the ancient arguments:

	"...the necessity for the highest possible degree of unity and
	esprit-de-corps; the requirement of morale--all these demand that
	nothing be done which may adversely affect the situation...the
	enlistment of Negroes (other than for mess attendants) leads to
	disruptive and undermining conditions."

	It was prejudice then.  It is prejudice today.

I couldn't agree more.  According to the ad, even the Defense Department's
*own studies* show that there is no valid reason for maintaining the
discriminatory policy.

Jeff Shallit

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung)
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:41:05 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>>The American people voted for a not so closet liberal with Socialist leanings
>>and they are gtting what they asked for. 
>
>You better check those vote totals again friend...
>
>Only a truly dillusional person could believe that only 4 out fo 10 voters
>represents the totality of American opinion.  The man's starting in a hole
>and has twenty million voters to sway before he can even claim to have broken
>even.  Quit kidding yourself already..

Please note that FIFTEEN, yes FIFTEEN of our presidents have been elected
with less than 50% of the vote.  That's more than one third.  In fact, if
you discount vice presidents who succeeded, it's closer to HALF.

Fact of life in America, my friend.

By the way, what is "disillusional"?

-- 
The Presidential Towers complex here   | Dan Hartung               |  Ask me
in Chicago is bounded by four streets: | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us |  about
Jefferson, Adams, Monroe  .....        | Birch Grove Software      | Rotaract!
        and Clinton!