HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:36:48 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cat

In article <POLITICS%92112016444659@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie) says:
>
>>From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
>
>>Bill's little girl was watching, too!  Do you have any idea how
>>it feels for a little girl to see her cat so abused?
>>
>>Somebody needs to put a stop to such press antics.  America is
>>getting sick and tired of them.  First, they wouldn't lay off poor
>>old George Bush when his mother was about to die, and now this.
>>
>>I SAY: the media should leave our leaders alone.  They are obviously
>>trying to do a good job and be patriotic.
>
>You know, you animal rights activists make me sick.
>
>You have obviously never had any experience with disease.
>
>You never complained about all the bad press that Millie, the
>Bush dog gets, you're just a hippocrit (sp?). Why can't you
>liberaltarians just let our presidents have whatever pets
>they want?
>
>I just don't agree with you, that's all. I know you have a right
>to say it but it is wrong and unnatural.
>
>Please do not give me any more evidence, it is all irrelevant,
>because all you have is your opinion, and I am impervious to facts.
>
>Frothing, and proud of it,
>Jamie

It's not a matter of animal rights, it's a matter of protecting your family's
privacy and not wishing your family (or your pets) to  be exploited.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:31:38 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Gays in the military: last chance

>From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

>The big problem in the gay in the military issue is showers, and fear
>that conduct will come to play that will be a problem.

No.  The big problem here is NOT conduct.  The issue is sexual harrassment.  I
posted on this yesterday, but no one responded so I'll repeat it one more time,
and then drop it if no one answers.

If any private employer in the country forced women to live in close quarters
with men, the EEOC would be all over them in a heartbeat.  Even though no man
is necesarily sexually attracted to any particular woman, such living
arrangements violate any sense of personal privacy and dignity.  I would
strongly suspect that many peole on this list would agree that such an employer
should be forced to stop using such living arrangements based on the reason
that even if no actual rape ever took place, the mere fact that the women would
be leered at and would feel uncomfortable would be enough to make the policy
intolerable.

In the case of gays, however, this line of argument gets conveniently
forgotten.  Now, all of the sudden, mere leering isn't enough to disqualify a
policy.  Instead, proponents of letting gays into the military say "hey, as
long as everybody keeps their hands to themselves, there's no problem."  Some
even go so far as to lay the blame for any problems on straight solidiers (the
equivalent of "blaming the victim," but I won't get into that).

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why forcing straight men
to live with openly gay men in the Army is any different from what would
ordinarily be considered sexual harrassment.  It seems to me that many of the
people on the "pro-gay" side of this issue are being inconsistent in this
regard.  Anyone?

JasonZ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:51:01 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Originalism and Facts: a disjoint posting

>[Andy F.]
>>In that document, it doesn't.  Since the declaration of independence
>>hasn't had any legal weight since the adoption of the articles of
>>confederation (which are also legally void now), it isn't clear why
>>that's interesting though.

Jamie the logic Czar:
>It is often considered interesting by "Originalists." Some brands,
>anyway. While the Declaration has no legal force of its own,
>it is evidence of the frame of mind of the framers of the
>Constitution, and such evidence is generally considered
>important by Originalists.

Sure, it's interesting as evidence about what they thought and meant.
However, it doesn't tell us anything about "equal" wrt the current
govt because we've repealed their "intent" on this issue.

>> Going the other way should only happen by means of the formal
>> process.  Then again, I don't even have to concede "informal
>> expansion is okay" because the 9th and 10th make that
>> irrelevant in most cases.
>
>Maybe. I hope so.
>The problem is that you'll be held hostage by historians.

Not necessarily, and certainly not always.  (The bigger problem is
that there's not always a historical record thanks to the brits in
1812 and other accidents.)  The fact that intent doesn't always
provide a nice clean answer doesn't imply that it never does.  As a
fuzzy-cheeked originalist, I think that documented intent should be a
decisive first resort and I can take that position without asserting
that it should be the only resort.

And, if we don't like what the wigged gents did in a particular case,
we crank up the amendment process and make them irrelevant in that
case.

>You will have to accept their verdict about what the
>Framers intended when they wrote those amendments.

Nope.  We can demand that they provide the relevant evidence and
evaluate it for ourselves.  They're expert witnesses, not judges.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:23:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons

KAT:

        Actually, you are correct - Bill Clinton *did* mention that "buy one
get one free" thing.  It's been pretty clear since the beginning that he intends
to include Hillary in decision-making.  ANd yes, there are plenty of historical
precedents of first ladies heavily involved.  They've often drawn heat for it;
it'll be interesting to see how it goes in the light of 1990s feminism, theories
of spousal equality, and after such a in-the-deep-background spouse as Barbara
Bush.  She has to be the antithesis of Hillary on this issue.

        How do you feel about *any* non-appointed people attending meetings?
Are you opposed to the ides of a "kitchen cabinet"? And if not, why object to
Hillary?  What's the big deal?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:15:24 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

It's the 20th century and I think it's sad that there are still so many
illiterate people.  I never said I had a problem with women out of the kitchen
and in the boardroom.  I just think that they should be in the boardroom because
they belong.  Not because their husband says it's okay.  Now before you reply
in a huff, again, I'm not saying that Hillary isn't qualified.  I'm simply
 saying that she shouldn't be sitting in on Cabinet and top secret meetings.
  As far as the pre-Donna Reed mindview, if family values are pre-Donna Reed
then I guess that's where I'm coming from.  I know this is a different topic
than the Hillary question, but it reminded of Primetime Live last night


They did a segment on violence in schools.  They showed thirteen year old kids
selling guns to younger kids.  One teacher said that of 45 kids in his class
only 3 were living with their real parents.  I remember all the laughter when
Bush and Quayle talked about family values.  I remember all the criticism of
Quayle attacking Murphy Brown and how he was stupid for not realizing she was
a fictional character.  Well it seems to be alright for the media to suggest
that family values would improve society.  It's alright for Diane Sawyer to
talk about the violence on tv and in cartoons.  Does she know that they're
fictional.  The nerve of her suggesting that tv, and a lack of family values
are the cause of school violence.  That's outrageous.

-Rich
From: MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Uncl: two quick points
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:16:27 GMT
Organization: York University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Should we include the term "heterophobia" in the discussions? If
you and fellow gay-bashers such as Christopher carry on in this..
what's your impervious wording again? "sick, perverted, disgusting"
fashion, then, yes, perhaps we can use your postings as evidence of
the rationality of heterophobia..
Hopin' It Don't Come to Dat,
MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:15:35 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

From:         Kevin McDade <CXYB@MCGILLA.BITNET>

>  You guessed right KAT. "MORON" is not a word you should use when
> engaging in political discussion. Four years from now, you'll discover
> that I'm right about Clinton.

Oops, my apology.  You are right.  Where was my manners?  Indeed
we should not use words like "moron" in a political discussion.
I should have used the word "bozo" instead.  Now THAT would have earned
Kevin's respect in a minute.    :-)

But seriously...

Let's see.  Kevin said that Bush would have won if Perot had not
run.  Many of us gave EVIDENCE to the contrary.  (Even Bush people
were saying that Perot's coming back in the race would hurt Clinton
a bit more.)  Kevin  can  not come up with an iota of evidence or
reasoning at the moment.  NOW he is saying that in four years we
would find out that he was right.  "Right" about what?  That you
said Bush would have won, had Perot not run?  How on earth are you
gonna "discover" *that* in four years.  Please explain.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:32:01 -0500
From:         Coed Naked Trivial Pursuit is the Game For All Ages!
              <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: C.E. not B.C.

 This has got to be the most ridiculous argument i have come across in
some time.  Who honestly cares what the particular denomination we use
for years. I am sick and tired of the politically correct garbage. Hell..
I like to offend some people now and again...it makes life fun. That is excatly
what it is.... politically correct garbage... you never see a university as
a whole willing to put itself on the line anymore and it makes me angry. No
one is willing to stand up for anything... now you may all be wondering what
has this got to do with the denomination of years... but this has a lot to do
with it because this is the only nation where the problem seems to be occuring.
Now I know there are lots of religions in this nation and some can feel one
way or the other about it, but.... it is the most common in our dealings as
a nation, many of the western countries use BC and AD and even the countries
that do not use it have not gone to war about it! Why can't we ignore the
whole damned thing!


                        John Stith (Freud)
                Bitnet:         STUSTITH@EKU
                Internet:       Coming Soon (hopefully)
                                STUSTITH@eku.acs.eku.edu


     "Life is much to funny to take seriously!" or " We Apologize for the
      Inconvenience" or "a sketch about idiots! Called the Idiot's
      Sketch"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:04:44 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      The new vice presidency?
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

It's been very interesting to watch Clinton and Gore as they try to
redefine the role of the vice presidency.  It's already made for some
awkward moments, but what blueprint are Clinton and Gore using?  There
is none, really.  What does a publicly acknowledged "real" second-in-
command leader DO in this country?  At press conferences, for example?

It's been awkward so far.  I think Clinton and Gore are trying to
figure out just how Gore should behave, what he should do, in public.
I agree that Gore's appearance at the first press conference was
awkward, but keep in mind that in previous administrations, the
Veep would be out golfing in Florida when such an occasion was
going on.

At the second press conference on Capitol Hill, Gore made a few
remarks.  Again, I sense that Clinton and Gore are experimenting.
This is very interesting.

I think Gore ought to have his own press conferences once in a while;
the sooner the better.  This is just an idea.

Whatever their other failings, it's fascinating to watch a "useless"
office being refashioned by Clinton and Gore.  I wonder if they will
succeed in really defining the role of the vice presidency the way
they would like?

Something else about Gore I have noticed since the election:  I'm
one of those who thinks his style of delivery is too wooden and
too painfully earnest, but somehow his speeches are quite effective.
Clinton is not known for his eloquence, but the things Gore chooses
to say are often rather so.  I liked his speech at Little Rock on
Election Night.  The ending was corny, but it was surprisingly
good.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:23:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: RECENT DISCUSSION TOPICS RE "DRAFT DODGING" & MILITARY GAYS

Kevin McDade says:

>..it is very normal to be surrounded with top minds, who isn't?...

Who isn't?  People who *are* the top minds...that's who we want (at least
who I want) running the country.  Not vacuous, ignorant folks who got
everything they have handed to them on a platter!

Finger painting (oops - I mean pointing - you know - you think of Quayle...)
and yelling louder do not a debate win...Quayle's gone - he's history...let's
just forget the whole embarrassing time and be done with it.

We always look at the VP job as something for a moron - a do-nothing - a
lackey.  We finally find someone who fits the description and people fall all
over themselves to prove that he *isn't* VP material!!!


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:16:33 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Another Victim

I am not sure if Kevorkian's way is the right way to do it, but I do
believe there is also a desensitization towards >life< in this
country.  "Life" (often a living hell, or not even that, a living
>death<) is to be maintained at all costs.

I'm not advocating playing God; I'm just advocating some compassion.
My grandmother has cancer and would probably never take that way out
either, but if she felt she wanted to, I would not stop her and I
would fight anyone who tried to.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:07:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Shower Party

>It has never bothered me, even remotely, that it's quite possible that
>the guy standing next to me in the showers at the basketball court is
>gay.

>I can't explain why this doesn't bother me, exactly, but it doesn't in
>the slightest.

i think most problems of discrimination are products of socialization.
my younger son jesse showed me how early this can start. we are waiting for
a "big brother" for him. two questions put to me were, would i object
to a big brother from any racial, ethnic, religious background. also, would
i object to a homosexual. i said i had no objection or preference, but that
i had no idea if jesse would object. jess had no preference re. race, etc., but
when asked about a homosexual, he said no way, that's disgusting. (jess is 11).

i was shocked at his strong reaction. i questioned him about this.

i asked him if he thought a homosexual should be allowed to be a teacher,
or a doctor, or a nurse, or a baseball player?
jess gave the questions a lot of thought. he felt they should have any job they
want.
i asked him then, if a homosexual was a great tennis player, would you take
lessons from him?  he said (hesitantly) that he would take lessons. (he's
very into tennis).

what i came to realize is that he listened to the schoolyard talk and formed his
opinion. he was well on his way in developing a hatred based on what i call
"toilet talk". my questions made him think. he was able to form a more rational
opinion when given the opportunity to think about it.

problems of bigotry and hatred happen when people take the easy way of reaction
over informed thought.

>p.s. I'm eagerly awaiting Linda's and Julie's answers to the question
>of whether they would like to shower next to 20-30 18 year old men.
>Straight men, I assume, right JasonZ?
>Come on, 'fess up, Linda and Julie.

well, jamie....after giving this question a lot of thought i have concluded
that i would have no objection to showering with a group of this sort.
(but only for scientific purposes and only after consuming a great deal of red
wine)

-linda

>     (just trying to stir up trouble,
>             j)
From: STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:05:26 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

T:
I believe the problem people had with Clinton was that he lied about dodging
the draft.  That is the difference between him and Reagan.  His protesting
against the war was another problem.  The point about Bloodworth-Thomason
is that she is a member of the cultural elite and wealthy that have supposedly
been given a free ride by Bush.  He'll really be in touch with working class
America in a beach house in sunny California.

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:53:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Okay... this is an example of what I was talking about, T.

I do not think that the method Clinton used to avoid the draft was
noble while a lot of people instead used more direct methods such
as burning their draft cards or leaving the country.

I think that opposing the war was a very noble thing for all sorts
of people to do and I am glad we have a President who did oppose
it.

Now you are trying to push me into a dichotomy-- either I admire
Clinton for having opposed the war and avoided serving or I don't.

Well I admire him for having opposed the war.  As someone who has
been threatened and, in fact, physically attacked for engaging in
nonviolent protest I definitely know the value of such protest and
encourage it highly.

However, I do not admire him for avoiding the draft through traditional
channels.  He said himself he would have fought if called.  I think
that would have been wrong.  I think he was just playing the odds and
hoping, not because he hated the war but because he didn't want to go.
And I don't admire him for it.  I think he was probably smart to do
this but I don't think it makes him a hero of the peace movement when
there were people taking more active stances against the draft which
really put themselves in serious risk.

Okay.  Your turn to put more words in my mouth.

:-)

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:30:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> In the case of gays, however, this line of argument gets conveniently
> forgotten.  Now, all of the sudden, mere leering isn't enough to disqualify a
> policy.  Instead, proponents of letting gays into the military say "hey, as
> long as everybody keeps their hands to themselves, there's no problem."  Some
> even go so far as to lay the blame for any problems on straight solidiers (the
> equivalent of "blaming the victim," but I won't get into that).
>
> Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why forcing straight me
> to live with openly gay men in the Army is any different from what would
> ordinarily be considered sexual harrassment.  It seems to me that many of the
> people on the "pro-gay" side of this issue are being inconsistent in this
> regard.  Anyone?

Because living arrangements are NOT conduct.  Sexual harrassment IS
conduct.  If a straight man feels threatened by the mere presence of gay
men, then that is his problem and he needs to do something about it (as
would a woman who was phobic about straight men).  No victims being
blamed there.  But any form of harrassment (even "mere leering," which
doesn't seem so mere to me) is conduct outside the bounds of what is
tolerable.  You seem to be assuming that straight men will be expected
to put up with the sort of behavior that, say, Navy women are expected
to put up with.  Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that such conduct
is inevitable.  It isn't, and most of us are maintaining that neither
group should have to put up with such bullshit.

Best,
Peter

> JasonZ