From: alizard@pil.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: re: the US elections...
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 22:38:20 PST

Re: Re: the US elections...
By: cortese #0 @skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) USEnet      

>From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
>Newsgroups: alt.pagan
>Subject: Re: the US elections...
>Date: 6 Nov 92 05:22:54 GMT
>Organization: University of California, Irvine

>In article <gate.LD0PTB1w165w@pil.UUCP> alizard@pil.UUCP writes:
>>
>>WE WON!!! As I type, Bush is conceding. An important battle has
>>been won. The war for America's future has NOT been won.
>>
>>I do not know if Clinton is going to keep his e-mail address. I'll let
people
>>know if he keeps it or gets a new one.

>As much as I would LOVE to have the guy's e-mail address so I can send
>him multiple congratulations, this sounds like a poor idea.  OF course,
>if you want to give me his address, I wouldn't mind . . . ;-).  Or are
>you just shitting us all?

You can have his current C-serve address if you really want it,
I'm not distributing it because I was told that they plan on
changing it... and their mailbox is overflowing / not checked
lately. If I get a new PUBLIC address for them, I'll put it on
the newsgroup. As for "are you just shitting us all" ... if you
ever find a deliberate error of fact in any of my posts, go ahead
and flame me.

>>Areas to watch in a Clinton Administration:

>>1. Gun control. If you feel as I do that it's a bad idea, make a
>>habit of contacting the White House...

>I do not feel as you do.  Guns I have no problem with -- but there is no
>reason in HELL why any sane individual should have an assault weapon, or
>why the gov't shouldn't check on you a little, or at least give you a
>handling course.  Jesus, what do they make you go through when you buy a
>car, a mere device to haul your ass from point A to point B?

Waiting period? If fundies take it into your mind to personally
harass you over being an infidel, do you think that they will
wait around for you to finish out your waiting period? As for an
assault rifle... basically, as sold to people without a machine
gun license, it's just a semi-auto rifle with a military looking
stock and a bigger magazine. No mystical killing properties, a
semi-auto hunting rifle (which no one is talking about banning.
Yet.) is even more powerful.

>>2. Censorship. Tipper Gore is the Vice President's wife. She is
>>potentially much more dangerous than Marilyn Quayle, especially
>>as her husband, unlike Dan Quayle, is going to be allowed input
>>at the highest levels of power.

>Al Gore, bless him, has never given me any indication that he carries
>Tipper's politics anywhere near him, or that he uses his position as an
>excuse to push her ideas; though, if a little input DIDN'T occur, I'd be
>frankly surprised.

>the First Lady But One to be any different now.  Besides, Tipper stirred
>up plenty of trouble before without being any where near the White
>House.  I'm not concerned.  (This, however, is not a shock since I love
>Al Gore.  Read the man's book -- it will make you love him, too!  The
>guy talks in the beginning about learning about all the shit that's
>happening to the env. and trying to talk about it in the Senate and
>getting furious and frustrated as all hell when he realizes that they
>just don't care.  He sounded like Cassandra, with whom I empathize
>greatly.  Unless he moons the audience at the MTV awards, I am not going
>to dislike him.  Tipper is a twerp, but you can't get him without her,
>and I'm willing to take the *minimal* risk to get someone who really cares
>about the planet.)

I'm just saying we need to keep an eye on her.

>>3. War on Drugs. In order to keep his promises on crime and the
>>budget deficit, we MUST stop the war and bring the boys home. The
>>war is costing so much at the Federal, state, and local levels
>>that it's a $100,000,000,000 + a year (including spending on
>>prison/jail construction) on American resources that now, more
>>than ever, must be stopped. We can't afford it if the government
>>is going to spend money on economic stimulation, health care, and
>>rebuilding infrastructure. More to the point, the money spent on
>>the War on Drugs has resulted in the price of crack dropping by a
>>factor of 4. We need to stop this before they start giving the
>>product away.

>Pray tell, you see no interaction between economic stimulation and
>drgus?  People get stoned when there's nothing better for them, and when
>they have no other way of making money.  Health care similarly affects
>drugs -- what do you do when you have such huge problems in your life
>but can't do anything about them?  All things are interrelated.

>And, trust me.  They won't give the product away.  This is a business,
>as much as anything else.  If a huge new diamond deposit is found
>somewhere, the price of diamonds drops through the floor and DeBeer's
>goes out of business.  The so-called War on Drugs is the best thing that
>ever happened to the drug-dealing, gun-toting assholes.  It insures a
>limited and highly expensive supply of what they sell.

The giving drugs away part was intended as humor. The WOD is
indeed the best thing that ever happened to our friendly
neighborhood gun toting thugs on BOTH sides of the law. Stop it
and a lot of them will become unemployed. I could see crack
prices going down by another factor of 2 though if the war is
kept going...

>No, I'm not advocating necessarily legalizing the hard drugs, like
>heroin and crack.  But I am starting to wonder if, logically, that is
>not the only real long-term solution.  It galls me to have to "give in"
>like that, but fuck gall and fuck pride.  We have a problem to solve.

I came to the conclusion that the hard drugs must be
decriminalized as well a number of years ago, and I don't like it
any better than you do.

>(The soft drugs, like marijuana, have no business being illegal -- and
>you are talking to someone who has NEVER smoked a single joint.  I'm
>starting to think I'm the only human left in North America who hasn't
>smoked or ever been drunk.  Ah, well . . . who cares?)

You probably are. Who cares? :-)

>>This is also, with Bush no longer able to appoint more Supreme
>>Court justices, the biggest threat to civil liberties at a
>>national level we have left.

>Again, I am not concerned.  Perhaps that simply means I am already
>expecting the worst.  (I think Willie had best take a page from FDR's

I am concerned... Clinton has publically stated he plans to
intensify the War on Drugs... a promise I sincerely hope he's
kidding about. Check what the drug seizure laws have done to the
4th amendment... and ask yourself how they can be applied against
pagans individuals and groups having nothing to do with drugs

>>4. The Religious Right organizations and their stealth candidates
>>that they are bringing up at the local levels. Their kind of
>>local organization literally took the GOP away from its
>>"moderate" majority. They are running for city councils, school
>>boards, and other political posts that largely determine how
>>local services are delivered, how our schools are run and what
>>is taught there, and provide a training ground for candidates for
>>higher office. I have no objections for Christian viewpoints
>>being represented for candidates for public office. I DO object
>>to candidates who have a moderate agenda for a public office and
>>a real agenda for the hard core Christians. These people can
>>steal our rights while attention is being paid to "top of ticket"
>>issues.

>Yaaaaaaggh!  I know.  For me, though, abortion is a top of ticket issue,
>as it is for most women.  If the men tend to ignore it or poo-poo it,
>you can depend on us in the more liberal areas to shove it out in the
>open.

It is a top of ticket item for me as well, as an indicator...
there are almost no anti-abortion candidates I would want to
vote for because I agree with them for other reasons.

>>5. Independent candidates and new political parties. A
>>fundamental principle has been discovered. If an independent
>>third party can come up with enough money (note- political
>>candidate ad rates are lowest available commericial rates), it
>>can buy large blocks of national TV time and get instant
>>credibility on a national scale. Perot, Marrou, and even what's
>>his name from Natural Law Party became national presences. Look
>>for more of this.

>Agreed, adn this may very well sap the strength out of the right-wing.
>Perot got a lot of attention from the moderate conservatives who were
>scared or felt sold-out by Bush's bootlicking and kowtowing to the
>religious right.  If Perot does what he suggested he might -- forms a
>third party -- we could see moderate conservatives (most of them)
>flocking to him in droves, and leaving the Repubs holding the Bible and
>not nearly as much money as they had before.

Sure, but Perot isn't the only possibility. A GOP split is a
definite possibility, though... with the Religious Right taking
the GOP name... as they own the party machinery.

>>6. We need to keep Clinton's feet to the fire on his campaign
>>promises... health care, economic growth, targeting R&D...

>I want mostly to see EFFORT on his part here -- real, honest, sincere
>EFFORT.  I don't expect he'll accomplish anything in a mere four years,
>so I don't know how hot the fire should be.  I don't want to fry the
>poor guy's nards, since even a sincere effort could meet with sinking
>(and it will take time for improvements to show), but I want him to
>remember what he said.  AND I want some environmental muck-racking on
>Gore's part; that's a major reason why I voted for them.

Let's see how it goes... this is why I said "keep your eyes open"

>Blessings,
>Janis

Blessings...
(that's why I want to post a WORKING Clinton address, so we can remind him
about his campaign promises... and maybe even helpful hints about how to