HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:26:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I didn't Jeff?  Here let me try again...

I don't find ANY of his appointments suitable, not one.  I can find one
or two that are tolerable in-and-of-themselves (like Les Aspen sp?)
but even they have a down side: Ron Delums Chairman of the Senate Armed
Services ...  What a friggin joke of a move that was on Clinton's part.

And exactly why do you think only Democrats are suitable.  Both Reagan 
and Bush had Democrats in their administrations, isn't Bill at least
as open minded?

>
>
>Based on your comment, don't you find it just a *little* ironic that it
>was *Clinton* who denounced the demands of some feminist groups as
>"bean counting"?

Yeah, Ha, right after he just made the nomination of an unknown woman
to head DoE.  The spot he had offered to a more qualified man and was
forced to with draw the offer from.

No one said Billary doesn't know how to play politics, it's abundantly clear
he does.  What he can't see to do though is keep his promises,  
or tell the truth.

PSG
-- 
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.  The ivory tower
is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194239.16465@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>Clinton (and democrats at large) have a blind spot in this regard.  They are
>confusing arithmetic (quotas) with the art of politics.  This bean counter
>mentality assumes that all members of group X (blacks, women, etc) are
>monolithic in their wants and desires.

Based on your comment, don't you find it just a *little* ironic that it
was *Clinton* who denounced the demands of some feminist groups as
"bean counting"?

I see nothing wrong with wanting to have a cabinet with diverse
backgrounds and experiences.  In the 1800's, a common worry
was that the cabinet not be all Easterners, or all Northerners.
How is that any different?

>If the primary goal is have a diversity of genes in the cabinet then I would 
>say that Clinton has done a fine job.  If, on the other hand, the primary goal
>is to choose cabinet members for their opinions and skills then I question
>whether Clinton has accomplished this task.
>
>Mike Best
>

Fine.  Name two members of Clinton's cabinet that you find unsuited
for the job.  Then name two Democrats you would find more suitable.

I issued this challenge to Mr. Galvanek earlier, but he ignored it.

Jeff Shallit


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19154 alt.rush-limbaugh:12348 alt.president.clinton:1278
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:27:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
: 
: In a previous article, a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson) says:
: 
: >In article <BzqsBM.CGs@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes...
: >>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?
: >
: >The feminist was complaining about CABINET positions, Carla Hills
: >and the UN ambassador aren't in the cabinet.  First of all, Manny Lujan
: 
:  At least TRY to get informed about the issues you are discussing.
: Mr. Clinton has decided to make UN ambasador a cabinet level position.
: After reading this far down in your post it became clear you didn't
: know what you were talking about. (1 sentence and you blew it). Don't
: you read the paper.           

Yes, Bill C. has decided that the UN ambassador will be included in
his cabinet; however, that person was NOT included in Bush's 
cabinet.  The original article was totting up the diversity of
the Bush administration, so the fact that Clinton will augment
his cabinet in this way is entirely beside the point.
Seems you're the one who doesn't read carefully...

Bill
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:47:54 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: 
: Most of the "Indians" died from disease, and this would have been
: the case whether the Spanish and the English had been good or evil.
: 
: Europeans brought worse diseases with them than Americans could
: give back (except perhaps for syphilis...which may have gone in the
: reverse direction)...and this would have decimate (literally) the
: indigenous North American population regardless of the state of
: enlightenment of European behavior.  The European conquest of 
: America was primarily because Europeans carried nastier diseases.
: 
: Gerald

OK, Gerald; I'm sorry I said "Indians".  Don't get all snitty on
me; old habits are hard to break.
I agree completely with what you wrote; that doesn't change the 
fact that the European conquest of North America WAS brutal-
intentionally and unintentionally.

Bill
From: bill@bcserv.wustl.edu (Eldridge (Bill))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:15:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, MO USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcserv.wustl.edu

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>It wasn't just ignorance; the Spanish (and the English, for that
>matter) killed quite a few Indians on purpose, and enslaved many
>more, and in fact, smallpox was often used as a weapon.  The extent
>of the deliberate massacres has been exagerated, but the fact
>remains that the Spanish conquest of Central and South America was
>extremely brutal.
>And yes, many of the native inhabitants were just as brutal; why
>that is often seen as an excuse for the Europeans is beyond me.

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 63110
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: A Few Thoughts About Clinton
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:56:16 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec21.094900.2296@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
>It's interesting to note that Clinton has enforced alot of what Perot was
>complaining about...namely rules on the foreign lobbyists for starters.

Yep, he's really putting it to the foreign lobbyists.  Like making one of their
own a cabinet member.  60 Minutes did an interesting piece on lobbyists and how
they are whooping it up, now that Clinton is in.  Ron Brown is a partner in one
of the biggest lobbying law firms in D.C.  Talk about an inside position.

Unfortunately for ol Ron, he'll have to resign from the firm.  Does anyone think
that will really make a big difference?



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19125 alt.rush-limbaugh:12311 alt.president.clinton:1268
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: PC lives
Date: 26 Dec 92 19:46:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: na
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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.)
: 
: PC is alive and well, don't believe otherwise.       

Far be it from me to claim that political correctness doesn't
exist, but it's a very limited phenomena, and has little connection
with the things you list above.  The first two are explained quite
easily in terms of a political practice which dates back hundreds
of years: Clinton is paying back favors.  He got a lot of support 
from women's groups, and now he's taking their input into account
in filling political positions, just as Bush did with his
supporters four years ago, and Reagan before that.  You don't 
really think Ed Meese was the most qualified person in the country
for the position of attorney general, do you?  
Shalala is extremely well qualified for her job, AND she has the
backing of an important Clinton constituency.  Nothing mysterious
about it.
Mock trial of Christopher Columbus?  Well, that certainly has a 
PC ring to it.  Did the "trial" do some harm that you know of?
Was it not merely an attention-getting ploy/historical inquiry?
Is Columbus, for some reason, off-limits to critics?  
The idea that King is the only person with a day dedicated to him
is not quite true:  we do have the aforementioned Italian 
explorer chap, Washington (yes, the official federal holiday is
still Washington's Brithday, although it's celebrated as presidents
day in most places) and, of course, the old Lord 'n' Savior
himself, Jesus Christ.  At any rate, the King holiday is actually
a commemoration of the civil rights struggle, which was a  true
watershed in American history, in case you don't remember it.  
There are plenty of examples of misguided PC thinking out there-
but it's a mistake to label everthing you disagree with as 
somehow "politically correct," and therefore not worth thinking
about.

Bill
.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable competition! (was Re: Tolls on the federal highways!)
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:46:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <LARRY.92Dec21120104@boris.webo.dg.com> larry@boris.webo.dg.com (Larry Rogers) writes:


|Actually, the message cannot be that clear, because it is being
|improperly interpreted here.  The law says that the companies will be
|regulated if they do not allow competitors to enter their markets.
|Companies that are in a competitive market are not to be regulated.
|That law is government "interference" and I personally welcome it with
|my current rate for basic service at more like $25.00 in a
|non-competitive environment.  By the way, right after the law passed,
|guess who just announced a rate increase.

Are you sure the law says "companies will be regulated if they do not
allow competitors to enter their markets."  I thought the law was that
if their was not a competitive market, then their would be regulation.
There is a big difference.

If your town is anything like mine, then the reason there is only one
cable company, is because the town counsel in it's infinite widsom
decided to grant an exclusive franchise.

This law is another example of more government interference, trying
to undo the damage of previous government interference.

I agree with you, that the kind of partial regulation we were seeing
sucks.  The answer is to go to full deregulation, not full regulation.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Double standard
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:36:47 GMT

Brad Green (green@plains.NoDak.edu) wrote:
: In article <BzJBwB.GAr@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
: >(Respected != though of highly);  I can respect someone's wishes, or
: >opinions, or even their rights without thinking highly of them,
: >and without even knowing them.  At least in my understanding...
:
: Look at it this way, how is the Senate Democratic (?) leadership going to
: try and tear apart, burn, or even mildly disagree with the guy they were
: trying to get elected Vice President just four years ago.  If they all
: thought he was the best thing since iced tea then, they can't hardly disagree
: with him now (on the other hand - those ARE Democrats!)

Say what?  Dukakis was the Presidential candidate.  He chose Bensen.  Bensen 
was peripherial.  I doubt that Dems were saying, "We really must elect Bensen 
Vice President."
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: PC lives
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:39:43 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>>Mock trial of Christopher Columbus?  Well, that certainly has a 
>>PC ring to it.  Did the "trial" do some harm that you know of?

>    To the extent that it is an attempt to revise history, I believe that 
>it does a disservice to anyone who buys into the revised version of history.

Personally, I think it's a nice idea.  As we become more intelligent
human beings and societies (hopefully), we should continually re-examine
our historical figures and historical situations to glean newly
obvious insights.  History is continuously revised with each piece
of new evidence we discover, and with our improved ability to detect
ramifications of actions in the past.  Thirty years ago, no one had
an inkling that CFC's might damage the atmosphere, and "judging" them
as if they did is certainly meaningless.  On the other hand, if 
Columbus had brought back a disease that wiped out Europe, he would
certainly not be regarded as a hero, despite the heroic nature of
his voyage, and there's certainly nothing wrong with recognizing
that the millions of natives affected by Columbus' arrival place
an entirely different valuation on it than does the Eurocentric
viewpoint.  History in the late twentieth century no longer means
finding "the correct version", but piecing together a mosaic of
conflicting reports and views and effects in order to discover various
insights and less than concrete lessons.

Welcome to Einsteinian history.
-- 
{{{{ 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]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,soc.history
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Somalia and Republican Utopia
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:08:38 GMT

bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:

>Why would he write such nonsense?

Maybe to have fun by hyperbole?
-- 
{{{{ 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]                              }}}}
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19480 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11268 alt.politics.bush:15377 alt.politics.homosexuality:8821
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: Somalia and Republican Utopia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 22 Dec 1992 12:27 EST  

<ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> writes...
><Article (by Robert Hirschfield) copied from "USA Today," Wednesday 16, 1992>
>THE'VE MET THE GOAL OF GETTING "GOVERNMENT OFF THE BACKS OF PEOPLE."
>     Somalia just may represent the end result of right-wing politics in this
>country.
...
>     One of the biggest contributors toward this anarchy is the massive
>proliferation of guns.  Who's to say these roving bands of thugs don't
>constitute a militia that has the right to bear arms?

One can reverse this argument 180 degrees and say that Somalia is the end
result of a leftist dream: a Marxist State that had tried to completely 
disarm the people and retain the arms for the state only.  The end result
is armed bands produced by a fragmented government and guerillas preying
on a unarmed populace.  Of course both arguments neglected the clan nature
of Somalia.
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Date: 26 Dec 92 09:06 PST
Subject: Re: Appointments & Perceptions
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec22.200150.19350@osf.org:1863206612:cdp:1588800071:000:1206
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 26 09:06:00 1992


So I guess if 90% of positions of power are held by white heterosexual
males they're representing somebody else, hus?  Maybe they are representing
those special interest groups then--you know, all the people who aren't
white heterosexual males.  Maybe *they * are the ones that should
be thrown out then, because they represent the special interest groups,
and get somebody in there who could really speak for white heterosexual
males, like an African-American Lesbian.

Actually, of course, the whms are representing themselves fast and furious,
and no sooner had I posted my post than on came MacNeil/Lehrer and
here's ELizabeth Drew talking about "special interest groups, not just
women, but Hispanics and so on."  And Stuart Taylor, said something
like they had "already determined that they were not going to appoint
a white male but somebody from an interest group."

I'd like to say, sure, white heterosexual males are of no interest.  But
I'm not going to.  I'm the mother of a whm, and I think they deserve
equal treatment.  And I can sure tell you they are in power and giving
themselves preferential treatment and have been doing so for years and
whoever denies this has no credibility at all.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:22:31 GMT

In article <BzqsBM.CGs@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Hmm, Clinton wants a Cabinet that represents the diversity of America.
>So, how about we have about 40% of his appointees be Republican?

Actually, Clinton approached at least one Republican for his cabinet (the
chairman of Hewlett-Packard, if I am not mistaken), but the man refused
to serve.

>
>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 [sic] Lujan, Secretary of Interior.

Manuel Lujan was an embarrassment.  He's a fundamentalist Christian who
doesn't even understand or believe the theory of evolution.  In 1989, he
wrongly claimed that the government receives "royalty payments" on
minerals from federal land sold to claim holders.  Some of the land was
in New Mexico, his home state.  He wanted to open the national parks
to grazing.  Even the Wall Street Journal called Lujan one of the
Bush cabinet's "dimmer lights".  

>Can someone explain how Slick's Cabinet is going to be more diverse than
>Bush's?

Just look at the appointments:  more women, black, and Hispanic appointments
than in any previous administration.  And his appointments have the unusual
merit of being qualified for their jobs.  Frankly, it would be harder to
do worse than Reagan-Bush:  Lujan, James Watt, James Edwards [a South
Carolina dentist appointed to head the Energy Department].
>
>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.
>

Well, you haven't looked closely.  How about Mike Espy for Secretary of
Agriculture?  He's a congressman from Mississippi who appeared in NRA
ads [unfortunately] and has close ties to conservative agricultural
interests.  How about R. James Woolsey, Jr., as director of the CIA
[a non-cabinet appointment]?   He's a neo-conservative close to Brent
Scowcroft.  How about Henry Cisneros, for Secretary of HUD?  He's a former
Mayor of San Antonio.



Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:19124 alt.president.clinton:1267 alt.rush-limbaugh:12306