HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:06:33 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      back on line!
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Boy, is it great to be back on-line :)  For those involved in the "gays in
the military", here's a summary of an NPR story I heard this morning.

1)  Through the 1980's, about 1500 gays and lesbians were discharged from
the military for being homosexual.
2)  In 1990, when 1000 individuals were discharged, the military spent $27
million recruiting and training their replacements.
3)  In a study done in the 1980's, the Pentagon concluded that the presence
of homosexuals in combat units had no effect on the morale or performance
of those combat units.

Now, some personal comments.  Peter (hi!) addressed the potential sexual
harrassment non-issue.  As for folks living in close quarters and so forth,
I once resided on a co-ed floor in a co-ed dorm with co-ed bathrooms.
Shower stalls were screened, urinals were not.  No one had a problem.  I
have also been on numerous field trips (read: camping out in the middle of
nowhere trapping rats for extended periods of time) with male and female
participants.  Very little privacy; again, no problem.

One point that has not been raised yet is the *current* effect of the ban
on homosexuals.  During the Gulf War, NPR ran a story about harrassment
in field units.  According to that report (and according to a number of
women interviewed on the show), men used the threat of leveling charges of
homosexuality to coerce women into having sex.  The basic pattern was "if
you don't sleep with me, I'll tell the Captain you're a lesbian."  Because
of the way the military works, if such a charge were leveled, it would be
up to the *woman* to prove that she was not homosexual; no questions were
asked of the person making the charge.  If that story was accurate, I would
say that this problem alone is sufficient reason to lift the ban.

To summarize, I haven't yet seen an argument against homosexuals in the
military that does not boil down to "it would be uncomfortable."  That
doesn't seem to me a compelling reason to discriminate.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:04:22 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

>I don't know the origin of this debate or in which directionit is going but
>it seems to me that one cannot count government subsidies to the individual
>as part of one's income.  This is not wealth generated by labor power but\
>is a contribution because one cannot, for whatever reason, fend for themselves.
>So that the monetary worth of an individual should be determined on what
>that person generated through their own labor power.  This would give
>a researcher a more accurate feel for levels of poverty, middle-classness,
>and wealthy.

Whether or not we should include govt aid depends on what we're using
the statistics for.  If we're using them in a "people are starving"
argument, an honest person will include them because the aid affects
whether or not they're starving.

Back when I was toying with being an actor, I found that public aid
was considered a great way to get along "until ...."  People who use
it that way aren't necessarily unable to provide for themselves, even
though they're unable to provide for themselves doing what they want
to do.  So much for the idea that earned income predicts one's real
self-sufficiency.

I suppose we could poll list members to see how many would work for
money even if they had "enough".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:06:56 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
              19 Nov 1992 15:16:31 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>> Yes, I do not agree with protesting.  I disagree with things that go in our
>> government, but there are other ways of voicing your disapproval than by
>> protesting.

>> -Rich

> As for your insiduous (am I using that word too much?) concept that
> protesting your government is wrong, I find that subversive.  Perhaps
> you like they way that the ex-Soviet Union handled voicing disaproval
> at the government better?

Have no worry, Rich, that ex-Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.
I know this country which is just as tough on protestotrs...... :-)

> Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:24:28 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

If you are enlisted in the military, it is your job and you must go to a war
if required to do so.  As for being drafted, it is a law.  Why was the law
 made?If it's alright to disobey this one, where do you draw the line?

-Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:12:17 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      ERM
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

The problems within the ERM rumble on. Last weekend the Spanish Peseta
and the Portugese Escuda were both devalued by (I think) 6%. It is
thought that the Irish Punt will devalue next weekend after the
election there on Wednesday, along with the Danish Krona. Sterling and
(I think) the Lira are still outside the ERM.

Some of us might say that this shows again the folly of trying to fix
exchange rates.

Dunstan
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:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:54:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shower Party
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Okay... I guess my answer is that it depends entirely on the men involved.


Satisfied...?

:-)

--Julie, who figures they'd be a lot more scared of me than I am of them.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mailer: WinNET Mail, v1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:04:45 -0500
From:         Jeff Green <jgreen@MODEMNEWS.WIN.NET>
Subject:      Re: Showers part II
Comments: To: uunet!ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu!POLITICS@uunet.UU.NET

>There were many good arguments against not letting gays in the
>military but no one wrote to the fact that gays and straights
>showering together somewhat resembles men and women showering
>together.
>
>Now just imagine that we wanted to let the women in the military
>but were asking them to take group showers with men and when they
>complained we would say:

Come now. Really, enough is enough. All this argument about showering
in the military with gay men assumes that gays have never been in the
military. It is obvious that this is entirely not true, and it is also
rather obvious that if president Clinton should decide, by executive
order to stop the military establishemnt from throwing gay men and
women out of the service, I cannot see where the number of gays would
increase in the least.

Moreover, the assumptions about people "knowing" are not valid. These
assumptions are being made by folks that just don't have that
information from the "inside". Gay men and women have served our nation
in the armed forces since their inception. They have fought and died
side by side with their straight (or as some would say "breeder")
companions. They have forged friendships and relationships that have
lasted for years. As a matter of fact this all sounds rather like every
other soldier that has ever served.

To be sure, there is a great deal of homophobia in our
society, and in the military it is especially rife, and it is also
certain that this must change.

The arguments about allowing blacks into the military are very similar to
those being tossed about now, as is true with the issue of allowing women
to serve in the armed forces.

One more thing (if you haven't already tagged off to another message),
this problem is only compunded by those that just cannot seem to get
along with others who are different, in whatever form, from
themselves. If it weren't gay men and women it would be blacks. If not
blacks it would be American Indians. Somewhere, sometime, all this
hatred will stop. If it does not, we can never forge our way to form an
America that is truly united.

Thanks for listening.

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Green, Editor                  "The Alternative Press for BBS Users"
ModemNews Magazine
203.359.2299 BBS                     Internet:jgreen@ModemNews.win.net
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:51:49 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: IRA foiled twice
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Whoops I meant:

   Meanwhile commentators here have remarked that rather than sending a
   peace envoy or whatever, the simplest way for America to stop the
   terrorists' activities is to stop funding them ... allegedly

Dunstan
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:43:38 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I personally believe the "if Perot had not ..." argument is moot.
I agree.
He DID run,
> he did or did not affect the election, apparently, he did NOT win a state, he
> may have finished second in two places (I haven't seen "final" numbers), he
> DID pull in 19% of the vote, his vote MIGHT have split a bit more one way
> or the other (but WHO CARES?), but the result would "probably" (my guess)
> have been the same.
I thought that it was only one state (Idaho?).  What is the other one?
> But, where does
> he go from here, and where does the American body politic go from here than
> the fruitless "counting angels on the head of a pin" exercise of trying to
> discern "if Perot had not..." My opinion on this thread, VMS
>
I agree.

Jonathan
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:32:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I think it's really funny that the people who call women whiners and
reactionary when they talk about sexual harrassment now use the same argument
against gays in the military!

On the one hand, these people feel threatened by an equal male/female working
populace, and shoot down the feminist's arguments; on the other, they feel
threatened by people who are openly gay, and *use* the feminist argument to
keep gays away.

I think it's hilarious.

And yes, before the judges ask their knee-jerk questions, the view from up
here is *STUPENDOUS*!!!  You can see for miles.  It feels great.  Thanks for
asking.


-T.

You know, the conservatives have something here with this self-righteousness.
It feels even better when it's justified. :)
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: right v left
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:28:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Ben Dover <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> Robert believes that not all issues are one-sided enough to fall entirely
> within the fenceline of either conservative or liberal camps.

And yet *you* were the one that called abolishing segregation laws
a "CONSERVATIVE social engineering."  Go figure.

>                                                                 He also
> believes that conservatives and liberals do not have to disagree on every
> single issue.  ..........................................................

That might be.  But, by definition, if an issue is either liberal
or conservative then they would ALWAYS disagree.  So don't blame
me, you called abolishing of segregation laws a "conservative
social engineering" and now you cannot bring yourself to say that
liberals were against it.

>> --KAT
> ---Robert

--KAT
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:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:36:58 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gays in the military: last chance

Thank you all for your brilliantly insightful remarks.  Particular honors go to
Julie, who unleashed the blistering intellectual parry "you, sir, are a
dweeb."  Move over Aristotle...

Anyway, it seems to me that my point is still pretty much untouched.  IF you
would argue that private employees have the right to a "nonthreatening" work
environment, then it makes no sense to claim that government employees do not
have that right.  Granted, much of the military hinges upon "threats" such as
boot camp, playing with live explosives, and the like.  These are threats
intrinsic to the military, so they're no big deal.  However, living in close
quarters with members of the opposite sex (for all practical purposes) is
clearly not intrinsic to the military.  In fact, the whole reason gays and
women have been excluded is because such living arrangements damage morale.  I
haven't seen anyone refute this (although I've been sorting through a lot of
uncharacteristically emotional posts -- I might have missed it, as I have no
intention of wading through the opinions of people who resort to ad hominems).

Maybe Jamie or Kerry or somebody who is willing to discuss this rationally can
explain to me why I'm wrong here.  So far, the people who have responded have
only reinforced my intitial beliefs.

JasonZ
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:36:51 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: C.E. not B.C.

In article <01GR29LNEITG002TJ8@drew.drew.edu>, PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET says:
>
>I have no problem with Jews using C.E. and B.C.E. but why are
>universities and other liberal institutions using this termonology?
>If a non-Christian should not be expected to use A.D. and B.C. Why
>should a non-Jew be expected to use C.E. and B.C.E.  Besides, the

It's a matter of choice, A.D. and B.C. are religious terms, C.E. and B.C.E.
are not, why should one use religious phraseology in a non-religious context.
You really are nitpicking you know, is it really THAT important?

--andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-Path: <wjgood@unixland.natick.ma.us>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 484
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 08:11:48 -0500
From:         "(Bill Good)" <wjgood@UNIXLAND.NATICK.MA.US>
Subject:      Re: Song Weaver's 13 Nov. post ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu!POLITICS" at Nov 15, 92 01:03:17 am

Jayce,
  What I find more offensive than your obnoxious behavior is your apparent
inability to edit out most of the previous material that you are responding
to. Contrary to what some believe, you DON'T have to quote EVERYTHING
verbatim for us to know what you're refering to. One paragraph is usually
sufficient.
  So please, give those who pay for receiving this list a break, shorten
your posts by reducing the amount of quoting. Thank you.


Bill <wjgood@unixland.natick.ma.us>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:56:45 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military
              16 Nov 1992 09:27:00 EST from <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>

> What you are not really addressing is that just because someone is gay
> does not mean that s/he will be attracted to someone of their own sex.
> More often than not, in fact, they won't.

Are homosexuals any different than heterosexuals?  I think we
take it for granted that most male heterosexuals are attracted
to the body of most females.  Combine this with days and sometimes
months of being without your sexual partner and then taking a
shower with an opposite sex.  Now, maybe this *should* not be
the way, but it sure is.

> --Julie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:12:44 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
              19 Nov 1992 15:22:05 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>> My point is that you voted for Bill and not Hillary and it appears
>> that both should have been on the ballot.  I can understand her
>> giving her opinion to her husband but as far as being involved
>> directly in meetings and decisions it is not right.

>> -Rich

> The man is married.  His spouse is an equal partner.  This is the way
> that he governed.  You .....
> How about this, Rich? Mrs. Reagan RAN the White House.  Was that OK?
> She MADE decisions sometimes without even mentioning them to Ronald.
> Was that OK?  You vote for someone who is married, you expect that the
> spouse will take an active interest in the other spouse's job.

Well, I can't say I totally agree with Rich on this but I don't
agree with those who disagree with Rich either.

See, it's like this.  I attend many committees during the week.
I might go home and discuss almost anything with my wife and
ask her opinion.  She might even force me to change my mind on
certain issues in the privacy of our home.  So far so good.

However, she would cross the line when she starts attending
my committee meetings.  And she would cross yet another more
serious line  when she participates in the discussion and
tries to influence others.  *If* Hillary Clinton is attending
the actual meetings and if she takes part in discussions and
tries to influence others, then I guess I feel uncomfortable
with that.

Three points: 1) I might not be familiar with the historical
role of the first ladies.  If in fact this is a norm then I
take back my objection.  2) If Bill CLinton made it clear to the
people that Hillary Clinton would be very active in the *running*
of the country and the voters still voted for him, then again I
have to withdraw my objection.  In fact it seems that Bill CLinton
at one time said, and I am paraphrasing, "You vote for one and
you get the other for free," or something like that.  However,
it seems to me that later, the campaign tried to undo what Bill
Clinton had said earlier.  3) It is not that I dislike Hillary
Clinton, in fact from what I know, I must like her a lot.  Bill
Clinton is one lucky person.

> Jonathan

--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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:40:16 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sundry Errors

>>I would advise, in general, against obtaining financial advice from
>>librarians, personal or otherwise.  Librarians are not, in general,
>>noted for financial acuity.

>Wow, embarassing typo there, Wales.
>Jimbo meant "Libertarians," not "Librarians." Obviously,
>librarians are quite reliable on such matters.

Actually, it kind of works against Jimbo either way since my personal
librarian is a libertarian. B)

(He must be a libertarian, he will work for microbrewed beer... B))

>Jamie

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:19:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Military Expertise

I have a question for you, Jayce: (and apologies to my Czar)
        During the Civil War, after the Emancipation Proclamation added the
freeing of slaves to the Union's objectives, many Boys in Blue, especially from
Border States, deserted.  They had signed on to fight for the Union, not against
slavery.  The rate of desertion rose sharply after the Proclamation.
        Where do these soldiers fit into your grand scheme of things?  Are they
dodgers?  Would you fight for a war Clinton drafted you into?  Would you fight
ANY war, regardless of its (stated or unstated) objectives?

        Actually, this turned out to be more than 'a' question, but I'm sure you
won't mind answering them.

-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 14:24:19 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: -Rich & The Clintons
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

KAT:
I disagreed with the things that Nancy did.  I stated before that as Clinton's
wife, he would receive input from her.  I don't see anything wrong with this.
But I agree with you that if she starts going to meetings and joining in
discussions as his wife, that's not right.  My dad is on the local School
Board and at home he discusses things with my mother and she gives her opinion.
But if she started going to meetings and even the closed session meetings,
I'm sure many people would have a problem with this.

-Rich
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:16:59 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        Reagan is hardly a hypocrite.  The army asked him to make films.
>>
>>Brett'
>
>Oh, I see "I'm not a soldier, but I play one in films" is it?I thought it was
>only Reagan who confused his films with reality (if you were joking, I'm sorry)
>Sylvester Stallone dodged the draft during Vietnam (he taught in a convent
>school in Switzerland) yet he plays Rambo, a Vietnam war hero, I suppose you
>see no hypocricy in that either?

        I fail to see how you can equate serving your country as the army asks
you with "dodging".  And who cares about Rambo?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:23:00 EST
From:         PBICKFO1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

If people should be prosecuted for burning a flag, how much farther should
the government take it?  Would stomping or spitting on a flag be illegal?
How about chewing gum or talking during the pledge of allegiance?  What
if I made a copy of our Constitution and burned it on the steps of Congress?
What if I flipped the bird at the flag... or at the White House?  In my
opinion, these are all acts which defame symbols of our country and our
patriotism.  My point is, if we can't burn flags, there are always alternatives
that will upset just as many people.  Face it, it's a freedom of speech that
no law can stop because it wouldn't know WHERE to stop.

Pieter
PBICKFO1@ITHACA