Pentagon Control Freaks
Velovich
>enlisted men in the military not to say anything bad about our
>illustrious Commander in Chief Bill Clinton. They say it is against
>Section 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Does Section
>88 of the UCMJ supercede the First Amendment (freeedom of speech) ? Has
>there been a coup and no one told me?
the US Military (in it's various branches) has had this rule for a
loooonnnngg Time. matter of fact, that rule and the inference that one's
Freedom of Speech is muzzled is older than the oldest member of this newsgroup.
no coup, you just were not paying attention in basic.
<*> V-Man
A Knight is sworn to Valor
His Heart knows only Virture
His Blade defends the Weak
His Word speaks only Truth
His Wrath undoes the Wicked
Delete the ".CanDo" from my addy to reply!
Colin Campbell
(Montgomery Wavell) wrote:
>It has come to my attention that the Pentagon is telling officers and
>enlisted men in the military not to say anything bad about our
>illustrious Commander in Chief Bill Clinton. They say it is against
>Section 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Does Section
>88 of the UCMJ supercede the First Amendment (freeedom of speech) ?
The Supreme Court has ruled (several times) that the right to free
speech does not apply to people in the military.
Instruct
operational requirements that make it necessary to suspend normal
constitutional rights. Specific rights have been granted protection by
inclusion, i.e. Article 31 of the UCMJ duplicates the civilian rights under
the 5th Amendment.
Service in the military is voluntary, and we have to give up somethings to
serve. It has been said that soldiers sacrifice their rights for the rights
of their countrymen. In many ways this is true.
The UCMJ prohibition against officers speaking disrespectfully about the
President or members of Congress may seem archaic, but it is well founded.
Popular military leaders in our history have sometimes gained what could
only be termed "cult status". Without this provision, some might be tempted
to usurp the the authority of the civilian government and establish a
military controlled regime.
The fact that our military serves and protects our civilian government is
one of the things that makes our form of government unique. The highest
ranking officer in the military is still a servant of the people.
In our military, officers have a special position, and certain restrictions
come with that position. While as as NCO, I can complain about some of
their privileges, I can also sympathize with their lack of freedom.
While we may not always agree with the civilian officials that are elected,
ours is a higher mission. We protect a form of government, and do so
willingly. That is the nature of the job, and some aspects may not be as
pleasant as others.
Just some of my thoughts...
Just me...
Montgomery Wavell wrote in message
<5666-36...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>...
It has come to my attention that the Pentagon is telling officers and
enlisted men in the military not to say anything bad about our
illustrious Commander in Chief Bill Clinton. They say it is against
Section 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Does Section
88 of the UCMJ supercede the First Amendment (freeedom of speech) ? Has
there been a coup and no one told me? I say IMPEACH THE SCUMBAG NOW!
CeeJay
Some goofy troll wrote in message <5666-36...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>...
It has come to my attention that the Pentagon is telling officers and
enlisted men in the military not to say anything bad about our
illustrious Commander in Chief Bill Clinton.
It wasn't the Pentagon, members of the US armed forces have been prohibited from derogatory comments of their superiors ( Senior Enlisted, Officers,President,staff,congress,and senate ) for years.
They say it is against
Section 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Does Section
88 of the UCMJ supercede the First Amendment (freeedom of speech) ?
Once you raise your right hand,you're accepting a loss of rights that you'd normally have as a sillyvillian.
Has
there been a coup and no one told me? I say IMPEACH THE SCUMBAG NOW!
Go take your troll to the political ng's and leave this one be....We have enough conflict between us ( those that have put it on the line one way or another),that we don't need an outside troll stirring up more fecal material....Go away!
Curtis Tack
exists to protect one. Until you can master that concept, you would be
well advised to "put a sock in it".
Curtis Tack
Matthew A. Ritchie
newsgroups is very interesting, and I'm glad it has come up. I have
argued that the principle behind Article 88 is the same one that allows
the military to refuse to allow open homosexuals to serve. That is, the
military is not the place to express your individuality, but to subsume
aspects of that individuality for the good of the group. We cherish
religious freedom in this country, but don't try to get out of duty on
the Sabbath because of religious objections. The courts have
consistently ruled against Seventh Day Adventists (a Christian group
that holds the Saturday Sabbath as strictly as orthodox Jews) who try to
adhere to this aspect of their religion and refuse work on Saturdays.
In short, the American military is designed to protect democracy, not
practice it. Free speech, religious expression, and political expression
(homosexuality falls somewhere into one of those three categories) is
curtailed in the military for the purposes of good order and discipline,
which is necessary for an effective fighting force. Since we have an
all-volunteer force, if you can't abide by these rules you shouldn't
join.
Montgomery Wavell wrote:
>
> It has come to my attention that the Pentagon is telling officers and
> enlisted men in the military not to say anything bad about our
> illustrious Commander in Chief Bill Clinton. They say it is against
> Section 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Does
> Section
> 88 of the UCMJ supercede the First Amendment (freeedom of speech) ?
> Has
> there been a coup and no one told me? I say IMPEACH THE SCUMBAG NOW!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> SEMPER FIDELIS
CeeJay
Matthew A. Ritchie wrote in message <362F38EE...@mci2000.com>...
That is, the
>military is not the place to express your individuality, but to subsume
>aspects of that individuality for the good of the group.
Snip
>
>In short, the American military is designed to protect democracy, not
>practice it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Free speech, religious expression, and political expression
>(homosexuality falls somewhere into one of those three categories) is
>curtailed in the military for the purposes of good order and discipline,
>which is necessary for an effective fighting force. Since we have an
>all-volunteer force, if you can't abide by these rules you shouldn't
>join.
>
I go and vent off,thinking I had made my point, and along come these last
two replies that make the point better than I could and make my venting LOOK
like venting.....
Well done!
Velovich
>(homosexuality falls somewhere into one of those three categories) is
>curtailed in the military for the purposes of good order and discipline,
Not exactly. Sexual orientation or preference has ZERO to due with your duty
and or job performance. The Military's rules on homosexuality are out of date.
they were written back hen society was of a (generally) single mind on the
matter. A lot has changed since then.
the military is generally very resistant to change, by necessity. In it's
regulations, it is very, VERY resistant to change, especially when forced from
without. In the case of the regulation prohibiting homosexual sex, they are
just out of date, and the current regulation reflect the predjudices of a
previous generation.
To forbid ANY kind of consensual sexual contact between adults is more
appropriate than forbidding contact under certain circumstances still
consensual and between adults. i do not see the generals talking about
forbidding male soldiers from going out and getting laid, so they are just
predjudiced against homosexuals.
A soldier's sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with his ability to rush a
machinegun. NOTHING!
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
<matthew...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>The courts have
>consistently ruled against Seventh Day Adventists (a Christian group
>that holds the Saturday Sabbath as strictly as orthodox Jews) who try to
>adhere to this aspect of their religion and refuse work on Saturdays.
Just to be equal opportunity "offenders," the military courts (backed
up by the civilian ones) have also ruled against Sikhs and their
beards and Orthodox Jews and the "locks."
Not to mention the Rastiferarians and the "ganja!"
ck
--
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN
Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net
F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more
security you have, the less freedom!)(Stolen from Alt.Fan.Heinlein)
Matthew A. Ritchie
is more than just a group of individuals. The Rambo mentality so popular
in action films is thankfully lacking in our armed forces.
Membership in hate groups (e.g., KKK, Nazi Party) is also prohibited for
our soldiers, even though these are legal organizations for other
citizens to belong to. The fact that a guy is a hateful bigot doesn't
affect his ability to charge a machine gun nest, but it does affect his
ability to work with other soldiers to accomplish the unit's mission.
The DoD has no prohibition against gay civilians (to my knowledge),
which is consistent with your assertions.
The military is not the place to assert one's personal preferences.
That's why freedom of speech and freedom of religion (our two most
cherished freedoms) are curtailed to varying degrees.
A note on the art of argument: making a string of emphatic assertions is
only convincing to those who already agree with you. Also, just because
something is old doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or wrong. If you're
looking to change some minds, you may wish to do more homework.
Velovich
>is more than just a group of individuals. The Rambo mentality so popular
>in action films is thankfully lacking in our armed forces.
>A note on the art of argument: making a string of emphatic assertions is
>only convincing to those who already agree with you. Also, just because
>something is old doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or wrong. If you're
>looking to change some minds, you may wish to do more homework.
>
My assertion was that you were inplying that being gay IS a problem. The
Famous Navy AW1st was an 8 year verteran and had multiple commendations. he
did his job well. but to keep his job he was required to lie. the military
should not care. he did his job and ultimately came clean on his lies. he
knew it would screw up his career and he did it anyway, so he could poper the
door for other good servicemen to have their opprotunities.
Above you mention that: "But the unit is more than just a group of
individuals"
Should I take this to mean that the mere presecnce of homosexuals in uniform
means that there is some sort of "conspiracy" to "convert" the rest of the
military?
Me, the thing that comes to mind is that they can serve, honorably, and that
I see no evidence that there is a "conspiracy" to "spread" homsexuality.
The entire basis of military service in this nation (the US) involves
subsuming one's own personality to the needs of the group. How does a specific
person being homosexual disrupt this? Concrete reasons other than other
individuals own stupidity are necessary, as I will not consider that someone
has a personal problem valid. If the Army wanted an SM to have a personal
problem, they'd have issued one.
So no more - "Would you want a gay man to shower with you?" crap. Frankly, I
like the unisex latrine idea. Do that in basic instead of "Time Out Cards" -
weed out the guys and gals that cannot adjust NOW, no worries when they get to
a unit.
Zebee Johnstone
Velovich <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote:
>
> Above you mention that: "But the unit is more than just a group of
>individuals"
> Should I take this to mean that the mere presecnce of homosexuals in uniform
>means that there is some sort of "conspiracy" to "convert" the rest of the
>military?
I think it's more a fear thing. THe reasoning going like:
"Real men always sexually desire all the time. If there was a woman
in my barracks, I'd drool all over her and feel her up and everything.
So if there was a guy who was attracted to other guys, then he'd
do that to *me* I'd hate being the object of nasty sexual attention
from some sexcrazed drongo I'm not attracted to!"
(The hypocrisy in this never seems to bother them, I suppose cos
women are supposed to like being drooled over and treated as
sexual objects by drongos they are not attracted to...)
It's been my experience with gay men that like most human beings they
prefer partners who *are* sexually attracted to them, but the
cultural thing that young men are faced with that it's "normal"
and "required" to be all sexual over someone just because they
are the appropriatge sex is hard to deal with.
>subsuming one's own personality to the needs of the group. How does a specific
>person being homosexual disrupt this? Concrete reasons other than other
>individuals own stupidity are necessary, as I will not consider that someone
>has a personal problem valid. If the Army wanted an SM to have a personal
>problem, they'd have issued one.
I don;t think it's all that possible to give orders about sexual
feelings to a bunch of 19yos :)
>
> So no more - "Would you want a gay man to shower with you?" crap. Frankly, I
>like the unisex latrine idea. Do that in basic instead of "Time Out Cards" -
>weed out the guys and gals that cannot adjust NOW, no worries when they get to
>a unit.
Having lived in a house with one shower and the one toilet in the same
room and men and women in and out, it can work. You have to trust the
people you are with of course - you have to feel safe with them and you
have to get over the training you probably got as a kid that there is
something evil and dangerous about yuor own body. But once you have
done it and you realise the world doesn't fall apart then showering and
shitting with a member of the opposite sex wandering in (who you are not
sexually involved with) is no real problem. A bit of simple politeness
and all is fine. Yes, we had 19yo hormonally charged males in the house
:)
I've also bathed naked in the creek and shat in the woods with people
I didn't know that well. I could trust them to be polite and
that was all I needed. If "good manners" like not passing remarks
and not staring are common, where is the problem?
If such "good manners" are *not* possible in an army unit, why not?
Zebee
Velovich
It is, and it is rediculous. is homosexuality just going to go back in the
closet in the next five years? i don't think so, so folks need to deal with
it.
>
>I don;t think it's all that possible to give orders about sexual
>feelings to a bunch of 19yos :)
Too true! But we can ounish inappropriate behaviour when it surfaces after
being told "Do NOT do THAT!"
>If such "good manners" are *not* possible in an army unit, why not?
>
>
Because that kind of social engineering is not "feel good". It also is
percieved as an insult to most fundemental Christians, as it (indirectly) tells
them to stuff their faith.
Oopps! Good thing Matt (and others) are against social engineering in the
military! Can't upset THAT applecart.
Zebee Johnstone
Velovich <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote:
>>I think it's more a fear thing. THe reasoning going like:
>
> It is, and it is rediculous. is homosexuality just going to go back in the
>closet in the next five years? i don't think so, so folks need to deal with
>it.
Pretty much. It's in many ways the samer problem as with blacks
and women - are the benefits of discrimination worth the losses,
especially in this time of low recruitment?
If you shrink the pool of people you can recruit from, at some point
you shrink it too far and you hurt yourself. Problem is, when is
that point?
If the presence of acknowledged homosexuals who have the good manners
not to make sexual advances is of itself so shocking to others
that there is no hope of unit cohesion then the game isn't worth
the candle. SOmehow I doubt that's so.
>>I don;t think it's all that possible to give orders about sexual
>>feelings to a bunch of 19yos :)
>
> Too true! But we can ounish inappropriate behaviour when it surfaces after
>being told "Do NOT do THAT!"
BUt does it work? Anecdotal evidence would indicate that you can tell
19yos not to have sex with those they are not married to and they
still do it :)
Interesting thing is that in Edwardian times (1900-1910) in England,
the average age of marriage for working and middle classes was relatively
high - late 20s. THis was because a man had to have an income and
a home and you didn't have the means till later in life. But the
illegitimate birth rate was low. [1] This seems to be because
the *culture* was against promiscuity and sex before marriage. 3
generations of Victorian puritanism. [2]
Modern culture is all for it. So it's hard for recruits to not have the
same culture as the world they came from, if fear of homosexuality and
if heavy emphasis on sex are the cultural norms, what chance has the
army got? [3]
Zebee
[1] "The Edwardians - The remaking of British SOciety" Paul Thompson 1975
He does say that this attitude to promiscuity was a sharp line between
"lower" and "upper" working class, with the lower working class
producing children all over the place.
[2] I suspect that living in large families in small houses and not
having backseats of cars was a factor too.
[3] although charging uphill against machine guns isn't a cultural
norm is it?
Frank Shelton
and commit 20% of crimes. Then I find they are 1% of the population and
commit 20% of the crimes. Seems like they are a natural criminal element to
me. Or they lied before.
Cheers,
Frank
Velovich
Uh, what is your source? Is this the famous American "I heard..."? If so,
do not believe it. I "heard" that Whitey is out to get the Black Male. Dunno,
but I doubt I should believe that either...
BTW, there is no such thing as a "natural criminal element". if there is,
please show some sort of evidence, this side of extreme right wing propaganda.
Something with a PhD after the researcher's name, and the name of the
university or Federal agency he works for.
Zebee Johnstone
Frank Shelton <frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>For years (decades!) I have heard that homosexuals are 20% of the population
>and commit 20% of crimes. Then I find they are 1% of the population and
>commit 20% of the crimes. Seems like they are a natural criminal element to
>me. Or they lied before.
>
Lies damn lies and....
20%? even Kinsey didn't go beyond 10%.
Crimes? Homosexuality *was* one for some time. Care to quote sources
on crime levels? I haven't seen any, I'd be fascinated to know what
they were. And how, of course, the criminal's sexual orientation was
determined.
Otherwise it's all just gossip and no one makes decisions
about others on gossip...
Zebee
- who heard that 40% of servicement have raped on overseas
posting... I heard it, it must be true!
--
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"You don't own an Italian motorcycle
- you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
Velovich
take gossip for gospel and judge others on that basis. Take those who think
Homosexuals are of poor character on the basis of their minister saying they
are evil for what they do!
And I won't even start on (ObAFM subject matter) Barracks/Sea lawyers....
>Otherwise it's all just gossip and no one makes decisions
>about others on gossip...
>
>
>Zebee
> - who heard that 40% of servicement have raped on overseas
>posting... I heard it, it must be true!
>
>
>
>
>--
>Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser
>Permit #1.
>"You don't own an Italian motorcycle
> - you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
Zebee Johnstone
Velovich <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote:
>
> And I won't even start on (ObAFM subject matter) Barracks/Sea lawyers....
>
Yeah :)
Same species as bush lawyers. The ones who know what you can and can't
be done for on the road or on your tax form....
Hmm.. there's a PhD thesis! The "barrackroom lawyer" is
apparently an enlisted beast. But is he? What's the distribution
of them throughout all ranks?
Zebee
Velovich
>> And I won't even start on (ObAFM subject matter) Barracks/Sea lawyers....
>>
>
>Hmm.. there's a PhD thesis! The "barrackroom lawyer" is
>apparently an enlisted beast. But is he? What's the distribution
>of them throughout all ranks?
>
>Zebee
Love to participate, but much to my dismay, there are Military History
Degrees offered by my university. I have soooo little time as it is, what
with keeping up my web pages and all, and I don't even get credit for it!?
Can't take the time.
sta...@bigfoot.com
tos...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:53:50 -0400, "Matthew A. Ritchie"
> <matthew...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>
> >The courts have
> >consistently ruled against Seventh Day Adventists (a Christian group
> >that holds the Saturday Sabbath as strictly as orthodox Jews) who try to
> >adhere to this aspect of their religion and refuse work on Saturdays.
>
> Just to be equal opportunity "offenders," the military courts (backed
> up by the civilian ones) have also ruled against Sikhs and their
> beards and Orthodox Jews and the "locks."
Not true. I met a Sergeant Major at Redstone Arsenal in 1993
who wore the full beard and head dressings (don't know the
technical name) of a Sikh. What the courts have said is that
anyone can get away with those sorts of things as long as it
doesn't interfere in the mission, and that's the Army's policy
as well.
At Fort Riley, a female Muslim soldier was not allowed to wear
the chador (full body covering) because she was a mechanic.
But various devout persons (of various faiths) have been
allowed, for instance, to wear sweats all the time at PT to
avoid showing their legs or arms. As long as they didn't
overheat in the summer, it was fine.
--
Geo.
sta...@bigfoot.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Velovich
>Degrees offered by my university.
OOPPS! the are NO Militry History Degrees offered by my university!
Frank Shelton
over the years form leaders in the homosexual community on TV. Of course the
desire to exaggerate the numbers is to multiply the supposed political
power. Anyhow, one quote I did find is:
Statistics show that men molested as youth (98% of the time it is by a male
homosexual) are 8 times more likely than average to molest a girl and 20
times more likely than average to molest a boy, thus demonstrating that this
behavior tends to reproduce multiplied damaged children in later
generations. Although child molestation is certainly not limited to the
homosexual community, it is disproportionate; about one third of U.S. child
molestation cases are committed by homosexuals, despite their only making up
about 1.5% of the U.S. population (homosexual incidence within the past five
years per the data presented above.)[22]
[22] P. Cameron, W. Coburn, Jr. et al, "Child Molestation and
Homosexuality," Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-337
And while not actually committing a crime this sure does cost money and
shows a lack of restraint or at least sensible caution:
Homosexuals account for 80% of the serious sexually transmitted disease in
the United States. From various statistics compiled and documented by the
Family Research Council in "Sexual Disorientation: Faulty Research in the
Homosexual Debate," Washington, DC June, 1992
Cheers,
Frank
CeeJay
*******>>A note on the art of argument: making a string of emphatic
assertions is
>>only convincing to those who already agree with you. Also, just because
>>something is old doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or wrong. If you're
> My assertion was that you were inplying that being gay IS a problem. The
>Famous Navy AW1st was an 8 year verteran and had multiple commendations.
he
>did his job well. but to keep his job he was required to lie. the
military
>should not care. he did his job and ultimately came clean on his lies. he
>knew it would screw up his career and he did it anyway, so he could poper
the
>door for other good servicemen to have their opprotunities.
>
> Above you mention that: "But the unit is more than just a group of
>individuals"
> Should I take this to mean that the mere presecnce of homosexuals in
uniform
>means that there is some sort of "conspiracy" to "convert" the rest of the
>military?
One word....Morale.....Remember "G.I. Jane"?The Quote went something like
"Gee Master Chief,she can hang with the best of us, Ther's nothing wrong
with her!"..."It's not her thats the problem....I't's us!
The rest of your diatribe is chopped as unnescessary.....
(not a flame btw,just a "constructive " viewpoint <I hope>)
Velovich
>Family Research Council
Sorry Frank, but I have heard something about the family research council,
and while the memory is not clear, it seems to be something like a think tank
that supports one POV (a la the Religious Right, but maybe not them
specifically)...
I'll need a bit more. NOT your fault, but due to this fuzzy memory, I cannot
accept that source as unbiased. Anything from the DoJ? FBI, Bureau of
Prisons?
Velovich
M>*******>>A note on the art of argument: making a string of emphatic
M>assertions is
M>>>only convincing to those who already M>agree with you. Also, just because
M>>>something is old doesn't mean it's M>necessarily bad or wrong. If you're
M>>>looking to change some minds, you may M>wish to do more homework.******
>
V>> My assertion was that you were inplying V>that being gay IS a problem.
The
V>>Famous Navy AW1st was an 8 year V>verteran and had multiple commendations.
V>he
V>>>did his job well. but to keep his job he V>was required to lie. the
V>>military
V>>>should not care. he did his job and V>ultimately came clean on his lies.
he
V>>>knew it would screw up his career and V>he did it anyway, so he could poper
V>>the
V>>>door for other good servicemen to have V>their opprotunities.
>>
V>>> Above you mention that: "But the unit V>is more than just a group of
V>>>individuals"
V>>> Should I take this to mean that the mere V>presecnce of homosexuals in
V>>uniform
V>>>means that there is some sort of V>"conspiracy" to "convert" the rest of
the
V>>>military?
>
>
CJ>The rest of your diatribe is chopped as CJ>unnescessary.....
Only the first paragraph was Matt's. the rest is all mine!
Zebee Johnstone
Velovich <velo...@aol.com.CanDo> wrote:
>>From various statistics compiled and documented by the
>>Family Research Council
>
> Sorry Frank, but I have heard something about the family research council,
>and while the memory is not clear, it seems to be something like a think tank
>that supports one POV (a la the Religious Right, but maybe not them
>specifically)...
A quick Alta Vista search on "Family Research Council" turns
up a lot of Pro Life and Christian Coalition sites, so I suspect
you are right.
It is difficult to find useful stats on such controversial issues.
For example, what is "homosexual"? Is it someone who states they are?
Is it someone who has sex with men? With men only? With men only,
ever? What is "sex with men"?
The incidence of married men who identify as het, but who have
sexual encounters with other men is surprisingly high. Are
they "homosexual"? The answer depends on who you ask....
Definitions are the bane of the statistician. We've seen plenty
of arguments here about what is "in combat" for the purposes of
getitng a Combat Infantry Badge for example. The question of
"what is homosexuality" is no easier. Then we get onto
"what is crime" :)
Zebee
Doug Berry
ze...@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) said:
>A quick Alta Vista search on "Family Research Council" turns
>up a lot of Pro Life and Christian Coalition sites, so I suspect
>you are right.
The FRC is one of the more rabid Christian Right groups.. they've
stated that parents should commit children who wish to stop
attending church, among other odd statements.
>
>It is difficult to find useful stats on such controversial issues.
>
>For example, what is "homosexual"? Is it someone who states they are?
>Is it someone who has sex with men? With men only? With men only,
>ever? What is "sex with men"?
From my experience, "homosexual" means someone who is sexually
and emotionaly attracted to the same gender. Sex isn't the
defining characteristic, but the ability to fall in love and have
a deep emotional bond.
Sex with men I'd define as any contact design to produce erotic
feelings and orgasm. That's anything from mutual jerk-off
sessions to anal intercourse (which, BTW, is a fairly uncommon
practice.)
>The incidence of married men who identify as het, but who have
>sexual encounters with other men is surprisingly high. Are
>they "homosexual"? The answer depends on who you ask....
A married man who is in the closet might be gay, but in denial
about it. You can force yourself to do anything if you want it
bad enough. I spent almost 15 years denying my attraction to
other men, until I got sick and realized that life was too damn
short. My wife has always known that she's bi, and was very
supportive about my coming out.
Men in prison have sex, but there is no real emotional
attachment.. the men serve as pleasure objects.
--
+-------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry dbe...@hooked.net |
| http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/ |
|-------------------------------------------|
| "Hear the voices in my head, swear to God |
| it sounds like they're snoring." |
| -Harvey Danger, "Flagpole Sitta" |
+-------------------------------------------+
Doug Berry
"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> said:
>Statistics show that men molested as youth (98% of the time it is by a male
>homosexual) are 8 times more likely than average to molest a girl and 20
>times more likely than average to molest a boy, thus demonstrating that this
>behavior tends to reproduce multiplied damaged children in later
>generations. Although child molestation is certainly not limited to the
>homosexual community, it is disproportionate; about one third of U.S. child
>molestation cases are committed by homosexuals, despite their only making up
>about 1.5% of the U.S. population (homosexual incidence within the past five
>years per the data presented above.)[22]
Not according to the FBI. The vast majority of child molesters
are married men who identify themselves as heterosexual.
>Homosexuals account for 80% of the serious sexually transmitted disease in
>the United States. From various statistics compiled and documented by the
>Family Research Council in "Sexual Disorientation: Faulty Research in the
>Homosexual Debate," Washington, DC June, 1992
!? Asking the Family Research Council to comment on gays in
America is like asking the KKK for a comment on Senator Carol
Mosley-Brown.
Zebee Johnstone
Doug Berry <dbe...@hooked.net> wrote:
>>
>>For example, what is "homosexual"? Is it someone who states they are?
>>Is it someone who has sex with men? With men only? With men only,
>>ever? What is "sex with men"?
>
>From my experience, "homosexual" means someone who is sexually
>and emotionaly attracted to the same gender. Sex isn't the
>defining characteristic, but the ability to fall in love and have
>a deep emotional bond.
Oh I agree. THe defining thing has to be your feelings, not what
your wabbly bits are doing. trouble is that for statistical
purposes that's a lot harder to quantify than physical acts.
You can ask your sample if they think they are homosexual, but some
people think this isn't enough, as you get confusion about what their
identity is. I know a non-trivial number of men attracted emotionally
to the same sex who refuse to be called "gay" becuase they don't like
the flamboyant stereotype for example.
Whereas if you tabulate the number of times they have had sexual
relations, you can say "OK, they have to be doing this cos
they are homosexual right?" Anyone who has studied male rape,
especially prison rape knows this is bullshit.
If you want to prove *bad* things about homosexuals, you take anyone
who has had any same sex sexual encounter and say "he's gay". Then
you quantify anything bad they may have done and say "look! 80% of
people who molest children are gay".
Which is I expect what the Family Research Council ahs done.
Zebee
CeeJay
>!? Asking the Family Research Council to comment on gays in
>America is like asking the KKK for a comment on Senator Carol
>Mosley-Brown.
ROFL!
Frank Shelton
Cheers,
Frank
Zebee Johnstone
Reputable statisticians who include their assumptions and their
criteria for including someone in a categeory as part of the report.
For preference, one who has no personal axe to grind in the outcome,
but if the methedology is correct, the numbers will speak for themselves.
Who should you ask about injury rates in peacetime service? The PR
dept of the government or the hospital casualty records? Same thing.
Zebee
John Sullivan
Frank Shelton
will keep it up, because I really want to know.
Cheers,
Frank
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
>In article <362f8c58...@news.iamerica.net>,
> tos...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 09:53:50 -0400, "Matthew A. Ritchie"
>> <matthew...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The courts have
>> >consistently ruled against Seventh Day Adventists (a Christian group
>> >that holds the Saturday Sabbath as strictly as orthodox Jews) who try to
>> >adhere to this aspect of their religion and refuse work on Saturdays.
>>
>> Just to be equal opportunity "offenders," the military courts (backed
>> up by the civilian ones) have also ruled against Sikhs and their
>> beards and Orthodox Jews and the "locks."
>
>Not true. I met a Sergeant Major at Redstone Arsenal in 1993
>who wore the full beard and head dressings (don't know the
>technical name) of a Sikh. What the courts have said is that
>anyone can get away with those sorts of things as long as it
>doesn't interfere in the mission, and that's the Army's policy
>as well.
Then he must have had a special permit for this one, as there were
several Sikhs at Walter Reed back in 1979-80 time frame who were
getting special discharges because they could not qualify with
standard Protective Masks. It was a really big problem at the time,
because one of them was a senior researcher at WR Army Institute of
Research, and they had to back door him into a civilian slot so that
they wouldn't lose him. I also understand that they are a lot tougher
on beard profiles for the folks with pseudofoliculits (shave bumps) as
well.
>At Fort Riley, a female Muslim soldier was not allowed to wear
>the chador (full body covering) because she was a mechanic.
>But various devout persons (of various faiths) have been
>allowed, for instance, to wear sweats all the time at PT to
>avoid showing their legs or arms. As long as they didn't
>overheat in the summer, it was fine.
Sounds like some of the LDS troopers I've worked with in the past.
AFAIK, the regs still state that they will no longer allow waivers for
religious requirements that will interfere with the "proper care and
feeding of Uncle Sam's Property," as one of my Drill Sgts once put it.
This would include dietary requirements in the field that are not
medically confirmed, religious requirements that interfere with the
fit or function of personal protective equipment, religious refusal to
accept vaccinations or blood products, etc.
How could the SGM handle the annual gas chamber exercise for example?
In the case at WRAIR, he was doing most of his work in a full body
suit, and as a civilian, didn't need to do the chamber qualification
annually.
Incidently, this was also about the time that the E-4 made the pages
of Playboy...she just happened to be dating a certain MSC CPT, and
they were photographed whilest she was jogging along the stately
grounds of WRAMC...and he was driving along side in a USA marked
jeep...care to guess what the vehicle number was?(1)
ck
(1) Now I've gone and done it...cross threaded again!
--
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN
Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net
F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more
security you have, the less freedom!)(Stolen from Alt.Fan.Heinlein)
Curtis Tack
simply one aspect of the natural diversity of humans, being gay in the
military IS a problem, in my opinion, for at least 1 of at least 3
reasons:
1. For the openly gay, there is created a certain "sexual tension"
within the peer group, the same "tension" as exists as a general matter
between men and women in a heterosexual setting. The distractions
associated with "romance" and "love affairs", homosexual or
heterosexual, are not conducive of good order and discipline. Witness,
as one example, the significant "churning" and loss of efficiency caused
by the rotation of pregnant sailors when ships' crews have been sexually
integated. This may not be a significant a factor on a large stateside
air base near a big city, but it damn sure is on a surface ship at sea
and would only be magnified in submarine on an extended underwater
cruise.
2. For those still in the closet, they are still in there for a reason.
Homosexuality is (for good reason or bad) not broadly enough accepted in
American culture at the turn of the 21st century that most homosexuals
are willing for their status be publically known. This desire to remain
"under cover" makes them classic targets for extortion of espionage and
sabotage.
3. Another historical factor probably stems from a confusion between
morals and conditions. It has not been so long ago that, in furtherance
of the Captain's (or his bureaucracy's) stated moral values COs in the
British and American navies held Sunday services at sea with required
attendance. Attendance at Chapel was required at the Service academies
well after attendence at shipboard services by crew members became
optional. Homosexuality was once generally thought of, and still is so
thought by many, as being a choice, a matter of life style as opposed to
being an aspect of human nature. And laws (and their implementing
regulations) are of course no more than a codification of a society's
values and morals. So, until those things change,....
Frank Shelton
not post it. Do not send it!
Frank
Velovich
Frank, it would help me a lot if you'd quote the item you are responding
to... I have NO idea what this is in reference to...
Velovich
>within the peer group, the same "tension" as exists as a general matter
>between men and women in a heterosexual setting.
The US Army is addressing this issue. "Don't do it" if you don't want the
shit to roll downhill is more or les how the Army feels.
Sexual Relations is a problem even if there were NO homosexuals in uniform.
This will not change. More education of teh New soldier is required. I say
bring back the old days of six months of B/T & AIT together, as a minumum, more
for technical fields. More like a 90 day B/T...
>This desire to remain
>"under cover" makes them classic targets for extortion of espionage and
>sabotage.
Not with Don't ask, Don't tell... There have been some folks that got in
trouble for pursuing homosexuals... FFI, IIRC
>3. Another historical factor probably stems from a confusion between
>morals and conditions.
Not to use the words of Clinton apologists here, but, none of their business.
Who I screw is NOT the Army's business unless I do it on Duty, on GI property,
or with a Foreign national that is in his/her government's employ (Russian
Spies!).
sta...@bigfoot.com
ct...@webtv.net (Curtis Tack) wrote:
> While being gay, per se, may not be a problem to the extent that it is
> simply one aspect of the natural diversity of humans, being gay in the
> military IS a problem, in my opinion, for at least 1 of at least 3
> reasons:
>
> within the peer group, the same "tension" as exists as a general matter
> associated with "romance" and "love affairs", homosexual or
> heterosexual, are not conducive of good order and discipline.
If not handled with propriety and a little common sense. This is
the same argument that was used to keep women out of the services
for so long, and it just isn't true. Sure, people are distracted,
but they're distracted everywhere, and they're distracted by a lot
of other things, too. Just a few minutes ago, I took a minute off
of work to check what was on TV tonight.
With this logic, we need to get rid of women in the services
altogether, which would cripple many of our support struts,
especially in the medical fields.
> Witness,
> as one example, the significant "churning" and loss of efficiency caused
> by the rotation of pregnant sailors when ships' crews have been sexually
> integated. This may not be a significant a factor on a large stateside
> air base near a big city, but it damn sure is on a surface ship at sea
> and would only be magnified in submarine on an extended underwater
> cruise.
You're arguing that shipboard pregnancies are a reason to keep
homosexuals out of the services? It seems to me that they'd be
the lowest possible risk group.
> 2. For those still in the closet, they are still in there for a reason.
> Homosexuality is (for good reason or bad) not broadly enough accepted in
> American culture at the turn of the 21st century that most homosexuals
> are willing for their status be publically known. This desire to remain
> "under cover" makes them classic targets for extortion of espionage and
> sabotage.
A lot of the reason they're still in the closet is that they're
not allowed to be out. As long as the military tells them that
what they're doing is wrong, then they'll be targets for blackmail.
A lot of people do socially unacceptable things that they don't
feel are important enough to be blackmailed into keeping secret.
For instance, a Marine might read romance novels. If it got out,
he'd be laughed at by his peers, but a foreign agent couldn't use
it to get Top Secret information from him. If the military lets
homosexuals serve out of the closet, then the stigma will
evaporate.
If someone wants to stay in the closet, then the policies won't
keep him out anyway, thereby making him MORE vulnerable to
blackmail than if the military had simply said, "Sure, c'mon in."
> 3. Another historical factor probably stems from a confusion between
> morals and conditions. It has not been so long ago that, in furtherance
> of the Captain's (or his bureaucracy's) stated moral values COs in the
> British and American navies held Sunday services at sea with required
> attendance. Attendance at Chapel was required at the Service academies
> well after attendence at shipboard services by crew members became
> optional. Homosexuality was once generally thought of, and still is so
> thought by many, as being a choice, a matter of life style as opposed to
> being an aspect of human nature. And laws (and their implementing
> regulations) are of course no more than a codification of a society's
> values and morals. So, until those things change,....
I'm having a little trouble following the argument, but here goes.
Society's values and morals have changed. Homosexuals are more
accepted in today's society than they have ever been (in America,
that is). Despite the deplorable number of crimes motivated by
hatred of homosexuals, it's better than it used to be.
I simply cannot see a single good reason to continue to keep
practicing homosexuals out of the military. Saying that they
would create problems because people hate them is the exact
argument that was used to try to keep the armed forces from
integrating racially -- "Gee, I'm enlightened enough not to
hate Negroes, but you know those hillbillies down on the front
lines will probably want to lynch them." We got over that,
because the military made it very clear that racism was bad.
They can do the same thing with homophobia.
Doug Berry
"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> said:
>Who do you ask, homosexuals?
In this case (information on child molesters), I went to the FBI
annual crime statistics for 1997.
As a bisexual man, let me assure that I have no desire to have
sexual relations with children.
Curtis Tack
A reread of the first post to include the above subject line as part of
its subject line confirms (to my personal satisfaction, at least) that I
merely stated what I understand some of the arguements (sp?) to be. I
tried to neither support or refute them. I think I should however state
that I hold the following opinions:
1. Sexualty is a part of the human condition. Its manifestation among
adults [as heterosexual or homosexual] is along a continuum from [a]
"I've never had any hetero contact whatsoever and dont ever want any"
through [b] "I swing both ways" to [c] "I've never had any homo contact
whatsoever and dont want any". Almost all people, if they are absolutely
honest, fall some where between [a] & [c]. The distribution curve,
however, is very likely strongly skewed toward heterosexuality.
2. Regulations governing the matter are not likely to change
significantly until the surrounding legal structure [legislative and
judicial] change to allow or require it. I would comment here that "dont
ask, dont tell" is not a real change. It doesn't open the closet door.
There will need to be a lot more Barney Franks before it happens.
May you always have fair winds and following seas,
Curt
Frank Shelton
>are married men who identify themselves as heterosexual
OK, the info I had said that one third of child molesters are homosexuals.
That still leaves the vast majority (two thirds) as non-homosexuals. There
seems to be no conflict here. The point was that 1.5% of the population was
doing one third of the molesting.
Cheers,
Frank
Montgomery Wavell
Brian Yeoh
> Would it concern you at all if military personell had to swear a
> personal oath of allegiance to Bill Clinton (or any other politician for
> that matter) like German soldiers had to swear to Adolf Hitler in WW II?
Beep! Godwin's law has been called.
Thank you for not contributing further noise to this group.
Brian "Thank <insert deity here> for quick Godwinners" Yeoh
-- It is like making love in a confessional with a prostitute
dressed in a prelate's liturgical robes reciting Baudelaire while ten
electronic organs reproduce "The Well Tempered Clavier" played by
Scriabin.
Umberto Eco, "Faith in Fakes"
CeeJay
Montgomery Wavell wrote in message <13319-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
Would it concern you at all if military personell had to swear a
personal oath of allegiance to Bill Clinton (or any other politician for
that matter) like German soldiers had to swear to Adolf Hitler in WW II?
They/we don't so the question is hypothetical at best ( requiring unfounded speculation) and moot at worst.....
CeeJay
May you always have fair winds and following seas,
Where'd that one come from??? (I'm in the brown "dirt" Navy and don't
alway's follow on the "fleet speach")
And long ago,I used to be on Prodigy (when it was the only game in town) and
some old Commander used that as his sig.....
Curt
Brian Yeoh
> Brian Yeoh wrote in message ...
> >On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Montgomery Wavell wrote:
> >
> >> personal oath of allegiance to Bill Clinton (or any other politician for
> >> that matter) like German soldiers had to swear to Adolf Hitler in WW II?
> >
> >
> >Thank you for not contributing further noise to this group.
> >
> >Brian "Thank <insert deity here> for quick Godwinners" Yeoh
> >
> aspect of Godwin's Law ?
Godwin's Law in its original form does not call for the termination; it
merely states that there will be a probability of 1 that H*tler will be
brought up at some point. However, its major corollary is that the signal
to noise ratio on the thread thereafter will be 0.
On most military fora, discussion of the Wehrmacht tends to produce heated
debate, while remaining relatively signalful. However, this particular
invoker has not only invoked H*tler; he has done so in a manner very
consistent with trolls, and thus I predict with a high level of confidence
that future responses will be signalless.
Pre-emptive strikes can work. Ask the Israelis and the Japanese[1].
Brian "skirting the underneath of the bridge here" Yeoh
[1] If P**rl H**bour is too sensitive, think Port Arthur.
sta...@bigfoot.com
ct...@webtv.net (Curtis Tack) wrote:
> Geo.
>
> A reread of the first post to include the above subject line as part of
> its subject line confirms (to my personal satisfaction, at least) that I
> merely stated what I understand some of the arguements (sp?) to be. I
> tried to neither support or refute them.
Well, I did try to refute them. I would do the same if someone
posted what they understand tp be some of the arguments that the
Holocaust never happened, or that Pauly Shore is a great actor
who has been robbed of his due recognition by the Academy.
Even if you're not on that side, there are a lot of people who
are, and I will take the chance to convince them of my side
whenever an opening presents itself.
> I think I should however state
> that I hold the following opinions:
>
> 1. Sexualty is a part of the human condition. Its manifestation among
> adults [as heterosexual or homosexual] is along a continuum from [a]
> "I've never had any hetero contact whatsoever and dont ever want any"
> through [b] "I swing both ways" to [c] "I've never had any homo contact
> whatsoever and dont want any". Almost all people, if they are absolutely
> honest, fall some where between [a] & [c]. The distribution curve,
> however, is very likely strongly skewed toward heterosexuality.
That is among the most reasonable discussions I've seen. I'll
have to steal it from you.
> 2. Regulations governing the matter are not likely to change
> significantly until the surrounding legal structure [legislative and
> judicial] change to allow or require it. I would comment here that "dont
> ask, dont tell" is not a real change. It doesn't open the closet door.
> There will need to be a lot more Barney Franks before it happens.
True. We are a reflection of our society, and our society
still has a problem with out-of-the-closet homosexuals.
> May you always have fair winds and following seas,
Being in the Army, I can do without the damn wind. But thank
you for the thought.
Curtis Tack
appointed over them. Those orders include, in effect, to respect such
officers, the most senior of whom is the Commander-in-Chief = the
President. Does anyone think that General Shelton, or one of the
civilian service secretaries for that matter, would last long if they
went about publicly bad-mouthing the CINC?
Velovich
>
>Being in the Army, I can do without the damn wind. But thank
>you for the thought.
>
>--
>Geo.
ESP. at night, after eight hours of hard cross country movement on foot, and
the Ranger Danger LT Decides to take a rest break on a hill-F*****g-top...
<*> V-Man
A Knight is sworn to Valor
His Heart knows only Virtue
Velovich
>civilian service secretaries for that matter, would last long if they
>went about publicly bad-mouthing the CINC?
>
As that is a court-martial offense, not likely.
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
wrote:
>
>
>May you always have fair winds and following seas,
>
>Where'd that one come from??? (I'm in the brown "dirt" Navy and don't
>alway's follow on the "fleet speach")
>
>And long ago,I used to be on Prodigy (when it was the only game in town) and
>some old Commander used that as his sig.....
>
>Curt
>
>
This one dates back to the days of "wooden ships and iron men," where
wind power was a major factor in who won the battle.
fair winds would blow steadily (and hopefully in the direction you
were needing to go), allowing all sails to be set for maximum speed.
following seas meant that the current and the waves were traveling in
the same direction that you were, again allowing you to increase your
speed, as well as reducing the strain on the ship and crew because of
the reduced pitch and yaw- the backside of the waves tends to have a
softer slope than the front side, and you don't ever want to get
caught with a crossing sea- does the phrase "rolling on her beam ends"
ring a bell?
ck
Doug Berry
"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> said:
According to the FBI Annual Crime Report, 1997, Child Molestors
self identified as heterosexual 82% of the time. 12% refused to
answer, and 6% identified as homo or bisexual.
You can look it up.
Frank Shelton
You can look it up.
--
Where?
Still, for 1.5%, way out of proportion.
Sadness,
Frank
George thiught I said "cheers" too much.
Instruct
aspect of Godwin's Law ?
Just curious...
(Vaughn)
Zebee Johnstone
Homosexual or bisexual. I think Kinsey said something like
10% of the population were homosexual or bisexual.
(as in practicing. he was of the opinion that 80% or more
were really bi, that there were very few real monosexuals)
Anyone got any reliable numbers?
So more stats would be needed, like who the ones where who
didn't specify orientation, how many were homosexual,
how many bisexual, and probably some kind of reference back
to the sex of the child molested.
Zebee
Doug Berry
"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> said:
>Where?
Go to the local library and ask for the FBI Annual Crime Report,
1996.
The web based version is a mess, and all PDF files.
>Still, for 1.5%, way out of proportion.
Where do you get 1.5%? Most modern studies place the exclusively
gay population at 3-5%, with another 5-10% express some amount of
active bisexuality.
African-Americans make up only 13% of the population of the US,
yet make up 60% of the nation's prison population.. does this
mean that blacks are inherently evil? I could also make a case
for banning Christianity from the US based on the numerous
priests, ministers, and church workers who have been tried and
convicted of child molestation.. a number far out of propotion to
their actual impact on the community.
Velovich
>
>Go to the local library and ask for the FBI Annual Crime Report,
>1996.
>
>The web based version is a mess, and all PDF files.
>
If your local Library does not have that, and it will be a periodical, BTW,
then go to a state university that is a government depository. It won't be in
depository, but they will have it in periodicals. Any University with a school
of law or school of social work...
CeeJay
Doug Berry wrote in message <363c92e8...@news.wenet.net>...
>If memory serves, on Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:28:17 -0500, Iron Chef
>"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> said:
>
>
>Go to the local library and ask for the FBI Annual Crime Report,
>1996.
>
>The web based version is a mess, and all PDF files.
>
>
>Where do you get 1.5%? Most modern studies place the exclusively
>gay population at 3-5%, with another 5-10% express some amount of
>active bisexuality.
>
>African-Americans make up only 13% of the population of the US,
>yet make up 60% of the nation's prison population.. does this
>mean that blacks are inherently evil? I could also make a case
>for banning Christianity from the US based on the numerous
>priests, ministers, and church workers who have been tried and
>convicted of child molestation.. a number far out of propotion to
>their actual impact on the community.
>--
Hot Damn! The more Doug post's , the more I like the guy!
Get em Doug!
Glenn Dowdy
>
> Doug Berry wrote in message <363c92e8...@news.wenet.net>...
> >If memory serves, on Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:28:17 -0500, Iron Chef
> >"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> said:
> >
> >>Where?
> >
> >Go to the local library and ask for the FBI Annual Crime Report,
> >1996.
> >
> >The web based version is a mess, and all PDF files.
> >
> >>Still, for 1.5%, way out of proportion.
> >
> >Where do you get 1.5%? Most modern studies place the exclusively
> >gay population at 3-5%, with another 5-10% express some amount of
> >active bisexuality.
> >
> >African-Americans make up only 13% of the population of the US,
> >yet make up 60% of the nation's prison population.. does this
> >mean that blacks are inherently evil? I could also make a case
> >for banning Christianity from the US based on the numerous
> >priests, ministers, and church workers who have been tried and
> >convicted of child molestation.. a number far out of propotion to
> >their actual impact on the community.
> >--
>
> Hot Damn! The more Doug post's , the more I like the guy!
>
> Get em Doug!
>
Glenn Dowdy
Doug Berry
Glenn Dowdy <glenn...@hp.com> said:
>> Hot Damn! The more Doug post's , the more I like the guy!
>>
>> Get em Doug!
>>
>Yeah, for an ex-Ranger Bat guy, he's pretty lucid.
Thanks, I think....
--
Matthew A. Ritchie
office it is no longer a UCMJ offense to bad-mouth him (although it
would be in poor taste, etc.).
Curtis Tack wrote:
>
> Military members DO swear an oath to obey the orders of the officers
> appointed over them. Those orders include, in effect, to respect such
> officers, the most senior of whom is the Commander-in-Chief = the
> President. Does anyone think that General Shelton, or one of the
Matthew A. Ritchie
Hardly a representative sampling. In a few years Kinsey will be regarded
as Freud is today: many interesting ideas, but most of them drastically
wrong, but a good seminal figure for broaching key topics and setting
the stage for further investigation.
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In alt.folklore.military on Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:28:17 -0500
> Frank Shelton <frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> >and 6% identified as homo or bisexual.
> >
> >
> >Still, for 1.5%, way out of proportion.
>
Zebee Johnstone
Matthew A. Ritchie <matthew...@mci2000.com> wrote:
>Kinsey drew his figures from his population sample -- male prisoners.
>Hardly a representative sampling. In a few years Kinsey will be regarded
>as Freud is today: many interesting ideas, but most of them drastically
>wrong, but a good seminal figure for broaching key topics and setting
>the stage for further investigation.
Oh? That's not what I recall from reading the study, care to give
details? My recollection of the report is that he did a large
number of interviews of people of many ages and occupations and
areas. I don't recall if prisoners were included, but they were
only a small minority if they were.
From the Society of Human Sexuality comes this little snippet. It
doesn't give a decent rebuttal to your comment, but it does imply that
there was a lot more to Kinsey than male prisoners. I couldn't be
bothered wading through the web hunting a copy of the actual report, I
await your actual quotes of Kiney's methodology with interest. Do you
ahve such quotes, or was this something you "heard"?
After the Second World War, sexology experienced a renaissance in
America through the efforts of Alfred C. Kinsey. His training and
experience as a zoologist made him well suited for the task of taking a
large-scale, strictly empirical survey of actual sexual behavior in the
United States. With their two monumental studies, the so-called Kinsey
Reports (SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, 1948, and SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN
THE HUMAN FEMALE, 1953), Kinsey and his co-authors made a new,
significant, and non-medical contribution to sex research. Moreover, it
could honestly be called sexological in the sense demanded by Bloch,
because it was the result of interdisciplinary teamwork. As Kinsey
himself made clear in the "Historical Introduction" to the first volume:
Throughout the nine years of study many hours have been spent in
consultation with specialists outside this staff, particularly in
the following fields: Anatomy, animal behavior, anthropology,
astronomy (statistical), biology, child development, criminal
law, endocrinology, general physiology, genetics, gynecology,
human physiology, institutional management, law enforcement,
marriage counseling, medicine (various branches), military
authorities, neurology, obstetrics, penology, psychiatry,
psychoanalysis, psychology (general), psychology (clinical),
psychology (experimental), public health, public opinion polls,
sex education, social work, sociology, statistics, urology,
venereal disease.
Zebee
sta...@bigfoot.com
ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
> In alt.folklore.military on Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:28:53 -0500
> Matthew A. Ritchie <matthew...@mci2000.com> wrote:
> >Kinsey drew his figures from his population sample -- male prisoners.
> >Hardly a representative sampling. In a few years Kinsey will be regarded
> >as Freud is today: many interesting ideas, but most of them drastically
> >wrong, but a good seminal figure for broaching key topics and setting
> >the stage for further investigation.
>
> Oh? That's not what I recall from reading the study, care to give
> details? My recollection of the report is that he did a large
> number of interviews of people of many ages and occupations and
> areas. I don't recall if prisoners were included, but they were
> only a small minority if they were.
<snip>
I may be thinking out of my fourth point of contact here, but were
the Kinsey Reports the ones that had sections on child and adolescent
sexuality that were later found to be drawn largely from the diaries
of pedophiles and therefore somewhat suspect?
WVanhou237
In article <19981028111701...@ng24.aol.com>, velo...@aol.com.CanDo
(Velovich) writes:
>
>> Does anyone think that General Shelton, or one of the
>>civilian service secretaries for that matter, would last long if they
>>went about publicly bad-mouthing the CINC?
>>
>
> As that is a court-martial offense, not likely.
><*> V-Man
>
Setting aside the fact that any officer who has risen to Gen.Off.
rank has been a "politician" longer that 99% of the self-confessed
civilian Politicians in the country ; Does anyone think Clinton would
be likely to appoint a Chief of Staff who would be likely to pull his
chain ? No friggin' way ! How well I remember Gen. Shelton sitting
meekly in a Senate hearing and saying, " If emergency funds for
Bosnia (etc.) are not appropriated, we'll have to take the money from
the training and modernization accounts". If he had been worth his
"stars" he would have told them to appropriate the money for Clinton"s
expeditionary force or get a new "Yes Man".
If you want to look for another turncoat, take a look at the "closet
Democrat" he chose as a SecDef..
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Nothing that is politicaly Right can be Moraly wrong.------ Th. Jefferson
Matthew A. Ritchie
following link quotes Kinsey extensively about the issue of
homosexuality, a category he rejected as too rigid
(http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/study/kinsey). He coined
the famous 1 to 5 hetero-homo scale, finding that many of his men
self-identified as gay fell in the 2-4 range.
Sadly, I don't have the time or inclination to document meticulously
every instance of errors and wild non sequiturs found in Kinsey. I'll
leave that to Judith Reisman, author of _Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The
Indoctrination of a People_. Kinsey's own Institute for Sex Research has
admitted a great many of his statistical errors, though they stand by
the conclusions (much in the same manner that die-hard Freudians clung
to Sigmund's conclusions long after his methodology was dismissed by new
research and plain common sense).
OK, has this thread gone far enough afield already?
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> In alt.folklore.military on Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:28:53 -0500
> Matthew A. Ritchie <matthew...@mci2000.com> wrote:
> >Kinsey drew his figures from his population sample -- male prisoners.
> >Hardly a representative sampling. In a few years Kinsey will be regarded
> >as Freud is today: many interesting ideas, but most of them drastically
> >wrong, but a good seminal figure for broaching key topics and setting
> >the stage for further investigation.
>
> Oh? That's not what I recall from reading the study, care to give
> details? My recollection of the report is that he did a large
> number of interviews of people of many ages and occupations and
> areas. I don't recall if prisoners were included, but they were
> only a small minority if they were.
>
Velovich
>"stars" he would have told them to appropriate the money for Clinton"s
>expeditionary force or get a new "Yes Man".
Hey! he has a job *I'll* never be able to get! :-)
Seriously, I feel that the JCS are in a bind, what with the very
anti-military bent of the current administration. WJC certainly likes the
pools the use of force will get him if all goes well, but I do not for a minute
believe he has acked away from his, "Everyone should live in peace so anyone
that chooses the military as a career is immoral." belief system. (Sorry,
Doug, don't mean to slam him here, but...)
>If you want to look for another turncoat, take a look at the "closet
>Democrat" he chose as a SecDef..
> Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Can't say I know much about him. I am not rabid Radical Republican, but look
at WJC's cabinet vs. Bush's cabinet - 11 millionaires to 9, to start, wasn't
it? So much for his cabinet looking like a crossection of America. (Yet
another WJC statement taht belies his real colors.)
Later Daze!
WVanhou237
In article <19981030152447...@ng156.aol.com>,
velo...@aol.com.CanDo (Velovich) writes:
>
>>If you want to look for another turncoat, take a look at the "closet
>>Democrat" he chose as a SecDef..
>> Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
>
> Can't say I know much about him. I am not rabid Radical Republican, but
>look
>at WJC's cabinet vs. Bush's cabinet - 11 millionaires to 9, to start, wasn't
>it? So much for his cabinet looking like a crossection of America. (Yet
>another WJC statement taht belies his real colors.)
>
That "rabid Radical Republican" sounds like a quote from the cant of Rep.
Bonier (D)
on one of his Newt Gingrich baiting tirades. From the rest of your post I'm
pretty sure
you didn"t mean it that way. Myself, I prefer to be called a staunch
Conservative
Republican. I can't fault WJC for having millionaires in his cabinet. After
all, who needs
some failed businessman to take charge of a large part of the government ? But
I can't
think of even one of his "programs" or initiatives that is the proper function
of the
Federal Government.
The FF's put the 10th Amendment in the Constitution for the specific purpose of
keeping a Pres. like WJC from controling the Government right down to the town
hall and local school board level.
All that said: The single most important function the FF's gave to the Fed was
to
insure that the U. S. Military would be able to protect a/o advance American
interests against all present or future oponents. Right now I would say that
Clinton's
administration has done a completely piss poor job of it.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Doug Berry
wvanh...@aol.com (WVanhou237) said:
>The FF's put the 10th Amendment in the Constitution for the specific purpose >of keeping a Pres. like WJC from controling the Government right down to the
>town hall and local school board level.
Funny you should mention that..
Here in California, we passed an intiative making marijuana legal
for use by those in severe pain from illnesses like AIDS and
cancer. This law doesn't affect anyone outside the state, and
was passed by a wide margin. Now the FEDERAL government, in the
person of the DEA is raiding pot clubs under a mandate provided
by George Bush. The Bushter evidently decided that the War on
Drugs (spit) overode the Constitution.
From what I've seen, the republicans are equally ready to trample
on States' Rights if they think it furthers their cause.
Velovich
>
>Here in California, we passed an intiative making marijuana legal
>for use by those in severe pain from illnesses like AIDS and
>cancer. This law doesn't affect anyone outside the state, and
>was passed by a wide margin. Now the FEDERAL government, in the
>person of the DEA is raiding pot clubs under a mandate provided
>by George Bush. The Bushter evidently decided that the War on
>Drugs (spit) overode the Constitution.
>
>From what I've seen, the republicans are equally ready to trample
>on States' Rights if they think it furthers their cause.
>
>--
>
>
>+-------------------------------------------+
>| Douglas E. Berry
I'll point out that the answer to how this *might* still be legal is easy.
Matter of fact, it is in you post.
The law was to provide relief to sufferers of pain due to illness, yet I do
not see any legal "Codine Bars", yet Codine is a legal drug for the treatment
of certain kinds of pain for some patients.
The "Bar" component in this seems more social that medical. How does the
propietor know who needs it and who just wants a hit?
Also, federal law stipulates (i know this does not cover state's right, but
bear with me...) that the regulation of drugs for medicinal use is federal.
Now, how does this fit into state's rights? Simple - where does the pot come
from? Is it up to labratory standards for OTC Pharmaceuticals? Is it up to
the standard for Perscription Phamaceuticals? Enter the Fed...
I favor decriminalization, but the money to be made by illegal activity makes
this a major problem. Also, lots of money will be wasted by court cases that
could be settled by having some sort of ID Card for patients that get arrested
and have to go to court to prove thier innocence.
The California law seems well intentioned, and I favor that move nationally,
but only once there is a set of protocols in place to regulate it's actual
intent, and keep the stuff out of non-needy hands (prevent recreational use,
till such a time as MJ is decriminalised)...
There a number of well intentioned laws that fail the test of prcticality. I
recommend Californians push this into Fed Court on State's Rights issues, will
likely find the law over turned on the basis of prior legislation and
Compelling Federal Interest, and they will have to go back to the drawing
board. THEN they will write a law that will actualy work, perhaps even
decriminalising for good on State level. After all, if the states can decide
(individually) that they can murder unborn children, then they should also
decide Recreational Drug issues as well.
But be prepared for a purity and manufacturing stadnards requirement for
these drugs no less than those for Tylenol and Bayer...
WVanhou237
In article <363e9e21...@news.wenet.net>, dbe...@hooked.net (Doug Berry)
writes:
>
>Here in California, we passed an intiative making marijuana legal
>for use by those in severe pain from illnesses like AIDS and
>cancer. This law doesn't affect anyone outside the state, and
>was passed by a wide margin. Now the FEDERAL government, in the
>person of the DEA is raiding pot clubs under a mandate provided
>by George Bush. The Bushter evidently decided that the War on
>Drugs (spit) overode the Constitution.
>
Check your dates. The California initiative was passed well after Slick Willie
was elected. You know, the one who puffs but doesn't inhale. The one who
gets his knob polished but it hasn't anything to do with SEX.
I will give you one point. Marijuana grown in California, for California
consumption only, is the concern of California. _But_ marijuana grown
in California and distributed in other states in contravention of other
state laws _is_ the concern of the DEA and the Fed. (Interstate Commerce).
Actualy, the Interstate Clause in the Constitution is one of the most misused
articles there is. It has been used as the Federal entree into any number of
issues that only tenuously, if at all, could be stretched to concern trade
between states. It was even used, hyprocriticaly, to give the Fed authority
in Civil Rights problems in the 60s. I do not argue with the rightiousness
or the result of the Civil Rights movement. In fact, I would call it the
greatest
exercise in democracy in history.
Back to military. For my part, one of the brightest lights I see from the 105th
Congress was putting 18B in the budget for the military in return for the 1.5B
worth of teachers. Then giving the whole 1.5B to the states instead of the
Federal Bureaucracy. After all, Military is a federal concern and education
is the chief concern of local communities.
Doug Berry
velo...@aol.com.CanDo (Velovich) said:
> I'll point out that the answer to how this *might* still be legal is easy.
>Matter of fact, it is in you post.
> The law was to provide relief to sufferers of pain due to illness, yet I >do not see any legal "Codine Bars", yet Codine is a legal drug for the
>treatment of certain kinds of pain for some patients.
They are called "Pharmecies". For a short time, I was buying
morphine at my local Safeway Supermarket.
> The "Bar" component in this seems more social that medical. How does the
>propietor know who needs it and who just wants a hit?
A 'script from his doctor. Since so many of the people who need
it are too sick to cultivate their own, cannabis collectives
sprang up that grew pot for members, and gave them a safe place
to get what they needed. Many also provided escorts home for
memebers.
At the depths of my chemo, I weighed 113 lbs, couldn't swallow
water without puking for ten minutes, and found walking more than
twenty feet exhausting. Smoking marijuana (which I found to be
not all it was cracked up to be, pardon the pun) allowed my to
get my meds down, and to EAT. I was lucky in that I had friends
who kept me in supply. Without them, I probably would've either
died or spent six months in the hospital, being fed through
tubes.
> Also, federal law stipulates (i know this does not cover state's right, >but bear with me...) that the regulation of drugs for medicinal use is
>federal.
> Now, how does this fit into state's rights? Simple - where does the pot >come from? Is it up to labratory standards for OTC Pharmaceuticals? Is it
>up to the standard for Perscription Phamaceuticals? Enter the Fed...
Under 215, patients are supposed to grow their own. It has been
accepted that co-ops can grow it for those too sick to manage on
their own. There is *no* interstate commerce involved.
We'd *love* to get some signifcant testing done on alternate
means of THC delivery. I have badly damaged lungs, and I can
just imagine what the 1-2oz of weed I smoked a week did to them.
But the FDA has listed marijuana as a Schedule I no-no. This
means that they won't allow *any* testing to be done, since
they've already decided that it is useless.
What many of us would like is a THC patch. That would allow us
to maintain some sort of normalcy through treatment, and avoid
the severe post chemo session problems I suffered through.
> I favor decriminalization, but the money to be made by illegal activity >makes this a major problem. Also, lots of money will be wasted by court
>cases that could be settled by having some sort of ID Card for patients that
>get arrested and have to go to court to prove thier innocence.
I personally don't care what people do to themselves, as long as
they don't harm anyone else. I managed to be a Deadhead for
years without doing drugs, and wouldn't have moked pot except for
the fact that it seemed insturmental in saving my life.
Most of the Cannabis clubs do provide IDs, and all but the true
idiot cops recognize them.
--
+-------------------------------------------+
Velovich
>articles there is. It has been used as the Federal entree into any number of
>issues that only tenuously, if at all, could be stretched to concern trade
>between states. It was even used, hyprocriticaly, to give the Fed authority
>in Civil Rights problems in the 60s. I do not argue with the rightiousness
>or the result of the Civil Rights movement. In fact, I would call it the
>greatest
>exercise in democracy in history.
>
It was also used fairly recently in Civil Rights cases in the SouthEast
regarding private golf courses and their desire to be segrgated. I think the
Citadel was also pressured under this clause.
Personally, I have no problem with it...
Matthew A. Ritchie
ago (it may have been Ginsburg who asked), could not think of any
situation under which the Interstate Commerce Clause would NOT apply.
That is, the government could not conceive of a situation that it could
not self-justify getting involved in.
Are you concerned now?
Velovich
>That is, the government could not conceive of a situation that it could
>not self-justify getting involved in.
>
>Are you concerned now?
>
The Clause requires a person or a good or a service that crosses state lines.
That is it. If I own a club, and do not have out of state members, I can say
no blacks and make it stick, except that I live in Indiana and we have laws on
the books on this as well as the Fed.
No, I am not worried.
Matthew A. Ritchie
Janet Reno's people, because when they were before the court they
couldn't come up with a situation such as you did.
Velovich
>Perhaps you should let Justice Ginsburg know about this, and run it by
>Janet Reno's people, because when they were before the court they
>couldn't come up with a situation such as you did.
Or just not worry about it?
Sorry, true or not, you haven't copied the entire ruling here, or the coplete
details of how this is enforced, and it is my experience that without that,
this is (almost) on topic here - folklore.
This really is more for a "Black Helicopters" crowd Group...
Matthew A. Ritchie
rights", but if a conservative mistrusts government power it's called
"conspiracy theory?"
BShimp3003
>
>Would it concern you at all if military personell had to swear a
>personal oath of allegiance to Bill Clinton (or any other politician for
>that matter) like German soldiers had to swear to Adolf Hitler in WW II?
Yes... but what does that have to do with anything?
We're all here 'cause we ain't all there!
Dudley
To summarize, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones
Act of 1990 because Congress doesn't have the authority to make such a
law. The Justice Department tried to use the Commerce Clause (!) to
justify the law.
Whether you agree with the law or not, the issue is whether the federal
government has the constitutional authority to make local laws. Schools
and gun control are local issues. While the Court as a whole refused to
sanciton this, STEVENS, J., and SOUTER, J., filed dissenting opinions.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and
GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Are you not concerned in the least that the Congress would make such a
law, the president sign it, and four justices approve it? Try to
separate your feelings about guns or whether you think the law was a
good idea from the issue of the federal government dictating local
school policies. Try substituting the gun issue for a theoretical law in
which it was illegal to do something you agree with and see if you have
the same unconcerned reaction.
{begin quote}
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (USSC+)
After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun
into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School
Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a
firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. §
922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the
indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of
Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it
characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative
history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the
Commerce Clause.
Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First,
although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts
regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected
interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is
in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition
elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that, by its terms, has nothing to
do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly
those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger
regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be
undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot,
therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of
activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial
transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects
interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element
which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms
possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate
commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no
indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there
is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete
tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §
922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone
does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this
Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair
to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police
power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. ___.
2 F.3d 1342, affirmed.
{end quote}
mike
>>personal oath of allegiance to Bill Clinton (or any other politician for
>>that matter) like German soldiers had to swear to Adolf Hitler in WW II?
i admit im no expert, but it wass my understanding that only waffen SS units
swore allegiance to adolf hitler (and no, they wernt the secret police), all
other forces swore allegiance to the state.
Also members of the british forces swear allegiance to the queen (and no she
does not run the country, or the forces for that matter, the elected
government do both).
In the end an oath is just an oath, no matter what you say about who, you go
where your told, do what your told to do and fight who your told to fight.
Mike
Velovich
but the method) insult anyone.
>
>Whether you agree with the law or not, the issue is whether the federal
>government has the constitutional authority to make local laws. Schools
>and gun control are local issues.
Uh,no, gun control is a constitutional issue, therefore, federal. The states
cannot infringe on my Constitutional rights. (They may, but if so, then
sufficient people have not found this a problem enough to take it to court
successfully.)
>Are you not concerned in the least that the Congress would make such a
>law, the president sign it, and four justices approve it?
Not in the least. Not a gun issue of even one that gets me going. It is an
issue of that every four years we elect a new president. Within 20 years,
congress is nearly completely rolled over (Thurmond not withstanding).
I do NOT get all up in arms about things that will change with the political
winds in less than a generation.
I am quite conservative, despite:
<<<<<
Why is it when a liberal mistrusts government power it's called "civil rights",
but if a conservative mistrusts government power it's called "conspiracy
theory?"
>>>>>
What I said was what I said. I do not look for a big, complicated answer
when a simple one works.
The orignal post implied that there was a determined effort to erode the
Constitution. I disagree. there is instead a great deal of laziness in
Congress right now, has been for about 30 years. they want to givve the
Executive branch the authrity to regulate without any specific rules, which is
congress' mandate.
I did not read the case, as I generally support what the Supremes say. Might
not like it, but the game works when we all play by the rules, and the rules
say that the sitting Supremes define what is and is not Constitutional.
"Civil Rights" are not, in and of themselves, "Constitutional". At least, I
have never seen such language in the document, or it's amendments.
I do agree that we have certain rights, but how does the Interstate Commerce
Clause interfere with them? No, the Fed had no real reason to meddle in that
pond, except to feel good about haveing "done something". And as it seems to
have been reproted here, the judicial system (that is one part of the three
parts of our government) threw out a silly law.
Why all the crying unless there is concern over a determined effort to
undermine our rights?
Velovich
>i admit im no expert, but it wass my understanding that only waffen SS units
>swore allegiance to adolf hitler (and no, they wernt the secret police), all
>other forces swore allegiance to the state.
All officers swore an oath to Hitler. Even Wehrmacht officers...
Dudley
you just shrug and says, "Hey, he'll be gone in a few years, so what's
the big deal?"
I also subscribe to Ockham's Razor (the simplest theory is usually the
correct one), especially in human affairs, because for the most part
people just aren't that well organized to hatch long-term schemes of
X-Files proportions. That doesn't mean, however, that certain groups and
individuals have very bad ideas that have terrible (even if unintended)
consequences.
You're right, that congress wanted to "do something" about guns in
schools, so they passed an unconstitutional law. The do-good president
signed it (after lobbying for it). The good Justice Department tries to
prosecute its first offender. When District court asks why the feds have
the jurisdiction, the only thing they can come up with is the Commerce
Clause, and a third of the Supreme Court agrees!
Reminder: slavery was the law of the land in the US for almost our first
century of independence, upheld by many court decisions and laws. If you
were alive at the time would that have concerned you?
Velovich
>So when Nixon was committing his crimes were you concerned then? Or did
>you just shrug and says, "Hey, he'll be gone in a few years, so what's
>the big deal?"
I was 7.
The next best thing, Reagan and Iran-Contra, was investigated promtly, and
several persons went to jail, IIRC. Wrong was done, the system worked, I am
happy.
So long as there is power, some will try to abuse it. We cannot get rid of
positions of power, therefore, there will be abuse.
I just don't let it keep me up at night.
And I want Clinton investigated. Even if no specific crimes have been
committed, he has largely (it seems -the investigation will determine for sure)
committed acts that while not illegal, still fall under the scope of the
Impeachment Clause of the Constitution.
>the only thing they can come up with is the Commerce
>Clause, and a third of the Supreme Court agrees!
>
And two thirds disagree, and on the Court, that is good enough to say this is
wrong.
>
>Reminder: slavery was the law of the land in the US for almost our first
>century of independence, upheld by many court decisions and laws. If you
>were alive at the time would that have concerned you?
I believe so. my family has always been up North, and are decended from
(evil, to some) Eurpoean White guys. We are fairly conservative (though I am
moderate on some issues), and support what would be called (today) "Equal
Opprotunity". That is the very basis of America's Foundations.
Flip side, I am afraid that I feel that if I had been German in 1936, I would
likely have been a good little Nazi. Luckily, my family has been over here
longer than that.
BTW - Thanks for the quoting of relevant text. Helps a lot!
WVanhou237
In article <19981103121610...@ng156.aol.com>,
velo...@aol.com.CanDo (Velovich) writes:
>>
>>Are you concerned now?
>>
>
> The Clause requires a person or a good or a service that crosses state
>lines.
> That is it. If I own a club, and do not have out of state members, I can
>say
>no blacks and make it stick, except that I live in Indiana and we have laws
>on
>the books on this as well as the Fed.
>
> No, I am not worried.
>
It matters not if you have interstate members or not. If any part of the
service
uses food or products of any kind that have shipped across a state line then
you are, according to the Feds, engaged in interstate commerce.
Dudley
noble German officers so reluctant to turn against Hitler, even when it
was beyound obvious that he was leading Germany to ruin.
The Shoe wrote:
>
> The V is correct. All military personnel, diplomatic personnel, bureucrats,
> all swore personal allegiance to The Mad Man.
The Shoe
John Sullivan
as I remember reading they do. Much emphasis on the obligation to refuse
illegal orders.
John
mike
>all swore personal allegiance to The Mad Man.
>
>>
>> All officers swore an oath to Hitler. Even Wehrmacht officers...
>>
the V said all officers, in that he may be correct. Maybe at some point they
chainged the oath. i'd be interested to see the dates as to who swore what
and when.
As for 'the mad man' you could apply that to quite a few people, and not all
on the german side either.
Mike
Velovich
>the V said all officers, in that he may be correct. Maybe at some point they
>chainged the oath. i'd be interested to see the dates as to who swore what
>and when.
IIRC, and I'll check, if folks want, 1936, was the timing of the "new"
officer's oaths. Coincided with the open rearmament and junking of the Treaty
of Versailles.
It was only officers, except in the Waffen SS, where EVERYBODY swore the
personal oath of allegiance.
The Shoe
coming home and your Beloved shows you the new lamp she bought. It is an
atrocity but you can tell she is genuinely pleased. I have two principles:
"Always Tell the Truth" and "Uplift Your Spouse". Whichever path I take I
have violated principle. It becomes a matter of recognizing the conflict
and acting upon it. The German military had two principles: "Faithful to an
Oath" and "Remove Evil When you Can".
Ivan T.
the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor - HAPPY BIRTHDAY - 223 YEARS!
Remember those that went before us and those to whom we have passed the
torch.
SEMPER
FI!!
Ivan T.
David Couvillon
Happy birthday, Marines.
Reminder... A&E's 'Biography' spotlights Chesty tonight!
David Couvillon
Major of Marines, Righter of Wrongs,
Wrong most of the time, Lover extrordinaire,
Chef de Hot Dog Excellance, Collector of
Hot Sauce, Avoider of Yard Work
Check out my homepage at
http:\\cust.iamerica.net\captcouv\
Bill Deskin
To absent friends and to those who man the wall today, "Semper Fi"
Bill Deskin, RVN 1967-1970
In article <36485117....@news.iamerica.net>, capt...@iamerica.net