The Handmaids Tale-How far are we?
daniel patrick duffy
>
> AERISS wrote:
> >
> > For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
> > clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state? With the
> > sexual inquisition beginning ie The President, Congressmen,
> > Republicans, Larry Flint etc. How long until it seeps into the common
> > people and is required before you can get a job . I know this is a
> > little off subject from the book but it certainly carries the same
> > theme and when I watch the news about these things I can't help but
> > shiver at the thought. So I'm just looking for some opinions on this
> > matter or perhaps just some reassurances.
> >
> > Aeriss
> > --
> > Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
> > http://www.talkway.com
>
> I don't think we're heading down the Handmaid's Tale's road at all: if
> IIRC, in THT, groups of right-wing religious extremists grab control of
> society in order to (among other things) control women's
> reproduction/fertility, and use all the worn-out myths and cliches about
> "bad" women deserving to lose all freedom in order to keep women in
> line. While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
> the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
> political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
> at a coup d'etat. (not that the religious right would turn down the
> opportunity for a coup; just that they don't seem to be the driving
> force this time). In THT we're talking women being kidnapped and
> enslaved for rich people to have babies; with Clinton we're talking one
> man's incredible stupidity and inability to keep his pants zipped
> providing political fodder for his opponents.
> --
> ÿWPC“
Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
hard to take NOW seriously after this.
AERISS
Morgan E. Smith
computerization of the economy than with the fundamentalist/patriarchy
part. She wrote the book when the religious right was in ascendancy, and
she came out of an era of great concern for the environment, so those
elements were the ones she chose to represent in the book, but her real
premise was based on the fact that as we computerize more and more, the
risk that some group, right or left, might be able to gain power and
essentially delete all its opponents from the field by the simple
expedient of electronically heisting their resources, escalates. This is
the part of the book that wasn't represented in the film version at all,
and was missed by many readers. Coupled with some kind of ecological
destruction, a group essentially captured the system, and then exorcised
all the undesirable elements, turning them into slave labour and
unpersons.
Morgan Smith
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Cordelia wrote:
> > I don't think we're heading down the Handmaid's Tale's road at all: if
> > IIRC, in THT, groups of right-wing religious extremists grab control of
> > society in order to (among other things) control women's
> > reproduction/fertility, and use all the worn-out myths and cliches about
> > "bad" women deserving to lose all freedom in order to keep women in
> > line. While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
> > the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
> > political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
> > at a coup d'etat. (not that the religious right would turn down the
> > opportunity for a coup; just that they don't seem to be the driving
> > force this time). In THT we're talking women being kidnapped and
> > enslaved for rich people to have babies; with Clinton we're talking one
> > man's incredible stupidity and inability to keep his pants zipped
> > providing political fodder for his opponents.
> > --
> > ÿWPC“
>
> Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
> supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
> Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
> hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
> hard to take NOW seriously after this.
Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
while the evidence against Thomas was rather shaky and he was
confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court--by a Democrat-controlled
Senate. Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a
Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
_consensual_ sex and lied about it. The singular, solitary case of
anyone claiming he committed sexual harassment was Paula Jones--and
she had an even weaker case than Anita Hill, and it was thrown out on
the grounds that even if she could prove that everything she said was
true, it wasn't sexual harassment. The lack of feminist outrage at
Clinton is because he hasn't done the things that Packwood did and
Thomas was accused of, and his policies are much better for working
women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.
Lis Carey
J. Brad Hicks
used to point out in interviews, it =isn't fiction=. It's barely
=exaggeration.= In interviews, Margaret Atwood would insist that every form
of oppression of women that is in _The Handmaid's Tale_ has been used in
some society at some point in history. Most of them are in use somewhere in
the world right now. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran come to mind.)
OTOH, it looks to me like things are getting =better=, not worse. Thank the
Gods that George Bush's economic problems put an end to the credibility of
the whole "family values"/"national security" alliance that put Reagan and
Bush into office. That, as I recall, is the backstory behind _The
Handmaid's Tale_. The narrator's owner isn't one of the religious leaders,
even if he is married to a woman who's a conflation of Phyllis Schlafly and
Tammy Fae Bakker. The husband/owner is one of the CIA/NSA goons behind the
coup. Between the end of the Cold War and the revelations about how parts
of the Cold War were conducted, I don't see another CIA director getting
elected president of the USA any time soon, and after Bush pretty much blew
them off while in office, I don't see the Religious Right putting their
faith in such a candidate either.
In no small part, the whole "Family Values" trip of the 80s was an attempt
to do to feminism what the "return to normalcy" propaganda campaign of the
1950s did to the liberation that women had experienced during WWII.
Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), it didn't work
nearly as well on an increasingly post-modern, media-savvy audience as it
did during the "Leave it to Beaver"/"Father Knows Best" era.
--
J. Brad Hicks
U.S. Shamanics & Mechanical Zen
mailto:in...@us-shamanics.com
http://www.us-shamanics.com
daniel patrick duffy
>
> daniel patrick duffy wrote:
> >
> > Cordelia wrote:
>
> > > I don't think we're heading down the Handmaid's Tale's road at all: if
> > > IIRC, in THT, groups of right-wing religious extremists grab control of
> > > society in order to (among other things) control women's
> > > reproduction/fertility, and use all the worn-out myths and cliches about
> > > "bad" women deserving to lose all freedom in order to keep women in
> > > line. While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
> > > the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
> > > political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
> > > at a coup d'etat. (not that the religious right would turn down the
> > > opportunity for a coup; just that they don't seem to be the driving
> > > force this time). In THT we're talking women being kidnapped and
> > > enslaved for rich people to have babies; with Clinton we're talking one
> > > man's incredible stupidity and inability to keep his pants zipped
> > > providing political fodder for his opponents.
> > > --
> > > ÿWPC“
> >
> > Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
> > supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
> > Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
> > hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
> > hard to take NOW seriously after this.
>
As a one of the rarest of political creatures now days, a _moderate_
Republican I thank you for the opportunity to respond...
> Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
> Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
> Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
Yeah, Packwood was a slime ball, as is the man in the White House. As I
understand Holy Feminist Writ, there is no such thing as consentual sex
between a man have overwhelming political, financial, or career power
over over his partner. Which oddly enough is also why the military
expressly forbids any kind of socializing between officers and
enlisted. If Clinton, our Commander-in-Chief, was actually an officer
in the military he would be rightfully cashiered for what he has done.
If he was CEO of a corporation, the stockholders would have have is
head, if only to minimize the risk of an embarrassing law suit.
> while the evidence against Thomas was rather shaky and he was
> confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court--by a Democrat-controlled
> Senate.
Actually, the evidence against Thomas was practically non existent, and
never would have been allowed in a true court of law.
> Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a
> Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
> _consensual_ sex and lied about it.
Actualy, he is being impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice,
witness tampering specifically. Now, which party controls the house can
be viewed one of two ways. The Republicans are out to get him as a
symbol of everything they despise about the liberal, draft dodging 60s,
or a hypothetical Democratic contolled house would have swept this all
under the rug.
> The singular, solitary case of
> anyone claiming he committed sexual harassment was Paula Jones--and
> she had an even weaker case than Anita Hill, and it was thrown out on
> the grounds that even if she could prove that everything she said was
> true, it wasn't sexual harassment.
Both cases were weak on evidence, he said-she said. But after the "I
did not have sex with that woman" - followed by the blue dress with the
semen stains, I would tend to believe Paula. Of the two potential
victims, it is Paula who has the larger grievence having been exposed to
the man's genitals in a situation where he made it clear that her career
would be greatly helped if she had sex with him, vs. lewd and crude
jokes about pubic hairs on coke cans and well endowed porn stars.
> The lack of feminist outrage at
> Clinton is because he hasn't done the things that Packwood did and
> Thomas was accused of,
He's done as bad or worse (see above)
> and his policies are much better for working
> women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
> never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
> infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
> those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.
My point exactly. Feminists are willing to hypocritically look the other
way because of his policies, which is just fine - that's what politics
are all about. Just don't let them come back after this is done spouting
nonsense about how good, pure and noble their cause is when they're
really just another power group playing the game. And there are a great
many prominent Feminists (who actually believe that the ideals of
Feminism are more important than political tactics) who are extremely
uncomfortable with the NOW party line on this issue.
>
> Lis Carey
As a moderate Republican, I'm not one of those who stay awake at night
worrying that Clinton is going to destroy the Republic. I honestly
can't figure out what it is about this guy that sets off my brothers
(and sisters) on the far right. You would think, given his legistlative
record on welfore reform and balancing the budget, that conservatives
would love this man.
Not since Nixon (yes I am that old) have I seen a politician that
provoked such a visceral hatred. And you would think that Nixon's
policies towards China, arms control, creation of the EPA, etc. would
have made him beloved of liberals.
Best of wishes for the new year,
Dan Duffy
Cordelia
DN736
>some society at some point in history. Most of them are in use somewhere in
>the world right now. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran come to mind.)
Agreed, the Taliban of Afghanistan come to mind they are a conservative's
dream. I have always wondered why the prominent conservative women in the
country like Dr. Laura, Schlafly, Charen ect don't practice what they preach,
why don't they stay in the home and keep their mouths shut
instead of being in the public eye giving opinions on national issues. A true
traditional woman should not have any opinions let alone give them on any topic
other than home and family, as the bible says "the head of a woman is a man".
Conservative woman believe this, the should practice it and stay in the home
taking care of their husbands where they belong, any thing else is blatant
hypocrisy.
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
> clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state?
Pretty far.
> With the
> sexual inquisition beginning ie The President, Congressmen,
> Republicans, Larry Flint etc. How long until it seeps into the common
> people and is required before you can get a job.
I'm not sure what elected officials getting caught in sex scandals --
hardly a new development -- has to do with job requirements for ordinary
people. As far as I know, it's currently illegal for a prospective
employer to inquire about your marital status, much less ask whether
you're an adulterer. Politicians are a special case, because they're
public figures, and because CNN needs *something* to put on the air,
even when there's no real news happening.
-- M. Ruff
MLeach4706
>>
>> For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
>> sexual inquisition beginning ie The President, Congressmen,
>> Republicans, Larry Flint etc. How long until it seeps into the common
>> little off subject from the book but it certainly carries the same
>> theme and when I watch the news about these things I can't help but
>> shiver at the thought. So I'm just looking for some opinions on this
>> matter or perhaps just some reassurances.
>>
I've wondered about this myself. I mean with
the new Republican Speaker Elect resigning because details of his salacious
affairs were about the be released by Larry Flint. This was, I think, a
clearly calculated ploy to get Bill Clinton to resign by setting an example and
I'm glad to see it did not work. After all who knows how far this nonsense will
go?
>While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
>the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
>political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
>at a coup d'etat.
No but because so much of their arguments is based on moral "purity," or is it
probity?, anyway this could snowball. Maybe it should for a while so that the
average conservative can come to the realization that a spotless sexuality and
performance in public office do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Mariane Desautels
>
> Elisabeth Carey wrote:
> >
> > daniel patrick duffy wrote:
> > > Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
> > > supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
> > > Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
> > > hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
> > > hard to take NOW seriously after this.
What about the OTHER feminists?
>
> As a one of the rarest of political creatures now days, a _moderate_
> Republican I thank you for the opportunity to respond...
>
> > Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
> > Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
> > Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
>
> Yeah, Packwood was a slime ball, as is the man in the White House. As I
> understand Holy Feminist Writ,
What Holy Feminist Writ? :-D
There's treading on shaky premises, and then there's walking on water.
> there is no such thing as consentual sex
> between a man have overwhelming political, financial, or career power
> over over his partner.
Right. So, what about Hil(l?)ary? Is that, if that is still part of the
equation, consensual? :-)
<snip>
> > Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a
> > Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
> > _consensual_ sex and lied about it.
>
> Actualy, he is being impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice,
> witness tampering specifically. Now, which party controls the house can
> be viewed one of two ways. The Republicans are out to get him as a
> symbol of everything they despise about the liberal, draft dodging 60s,
> or a hypothetical Democratic contolled house would have swept this all
> under the rug.
So what's the second way?
<snip>
> > and his policies are much better for working
> > women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
> > never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
> > infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
> > those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.
>
> My point exactly. Feminists are willing to hypocritically look the other
> way because of his policies, which is just fine - that's what politics
> are all about.
With the media today, everybody can look both ways, and then some.
> Just don't let them come back after this is done spouting
> nonsense about how good, pure and noble their cause is when they're
> really just another power group playing the game.
Name the group you're talking about. Do you mean NOW? If you mean NOW,
say NOW, don't just wave a finger at feminists everywhere.
You're likely to see it bitten off if you keep doing it.
> And there are a great
> many prominent Feminists (who actually believe that the ideals of
> Feminism are more important than political tactics) who are extremely
> uncomfortable with the NOW party line on this issue.
See? Feminists aren't all molecules of a monolith, you know. Just
because some factions shout a lot, it doesn't make them any more
important than the rest. (That goes for a certain country, too.)
> As a moderate Republican, I'm not one of those who stay awake at night
> worrying that Clinton is going to destroy the Republic.
As a Canadian, well, I'm allowed to laugh at the lot of you.
> I honestly
> can't figure out what it is about this guy that sets off my brothers
> (and sisters) on the far right. You would think, given his legistlative
> record on welfore reform and balancing the budget, that conservatives
> would love this man.
Yes well, looking at the image being offered, I'm wondering whether
anyone's thinking at all over there.
> Not since Nixon (yes I am that old) have I seen a politician that
> provoked such a visceral hatred.
You people (ie the people of the USA) really don't like looking at
Caliban, do you?
> And you would think that Nixon's
> policies towards China, arms control, creation of the EPA, etc. would
> have made him beloved of liberals.
Aren't people just hilariously funny-bizarre?
Mariane
--
"let's blur the intentions / and smudge what it stands for / reserve
the pretentions / for those who judge what we dance for / let's get
pissed / and buck the system / get our psyche's kissed / while our
flesh is twistin / it's not very often this army recruits / so let's
go Dancing In Heavy Boots." -- Dalbello
J. Otto Tennant
>>
>> Lis Carey
>As a moderate Republican, I'm not one of those who stay awake at night
>worrying that Clinton is going to destroy the Republic. I honestly
>can't figure out what it is about this guy that sets off my brothers
>(and sisters) on the far right. You would think, given his legistlative
>record on welfore reform and balancing the budget, that conservatives
>would love this man.
>Not since Nixon (yes I am that old) have I seen a politician that
>provoked such a visceral hatred. And you would think that Nixon's
>policies towards China, arms control, creation of the EPA, etc. would
>have made him beloved of liberals.
>Best of wishes for the new year,
>Dan Duffy
I don't think there is hatred, in the sense that the liberals hate
Nixon. There is anger and frustration at the ability of the liberals to
ignore the law and to pervert it to their ends. I don't have time to
list the many cases, but the Clinton Administration's abuses in the
department of Justice, from killing the Whitewater investigation to the
A.G's refusal to investigate campaign finance violations are known to
zall. The liberals sharing President Clinton's moral bankruptcy just
don't care. Clinton should be impeached for violating the Tenure of
Office Act (Bill Lann Lee is the most egregious example).
--
J.Otto Tennant jo...@pobox.com
Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.
Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Rachel Brown
> > clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state?
We, as in the USA, are pretty darn far from it, at least as far as public
policy goes, IMHO.
On the other hand, Afghanistan's current Taliban government basically is
The Handmaid's Tale, minus the forced breeding. Women are not allowed to
hold jobs, go to school, or appear in public without a) wearing a burqa,
which is basically a sheet over the entire body with a tiny bit of mesh to
see out of, and b) being accompanied by a husband, brother, father, or son.
Women without male relatives are not excused from this rule, nor are women
who can't afford a burqa.
Women violating this rule are subject to severe beatings, and a number of
women have died because they couldn't leave the house to seek medical care
-- which is difficult to get anyway, because doctors are only allowed to
communicate with a woman via a male relative. Oh, yes, and houses that
contain women must paint their windows over. Not surprisingly, there has
been a large increase in female suicides since the takeover.
I'm not making this up, incredible as it sounds. Contact any international
human rights organization if you want to get more information or help out.
Rachel
daniel patrick duffy
>
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
> >Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
> >Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
> >confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court--by a Democrat-controlled
> >Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
> >_consensual_ sex and lied about it.
>
> testify that the power imbalance between Clinton and a very junior employee was
> so great that consent was impossible. If a corporate CEO had sex with a a
> newly-hired entry-level just-out-of-college employee, she could easily claim
> that her consent was not really consent. I'm not saying she'd win -- but such
> a case would likely go to a jury. Such a position is certainly consistent with
> the MacKinnon wing of the feminist movement.
>
> And you forgot one phrase -- he lied "under oath" about a putatively consesual
> relationship. Now, if you want to say that perjury doesn't count if it
> involves sex, well I suppose you can take that position. But we ask people to
> testify truthfully about sex all the time in all sorts of contexts, from sexual
> harassment cases to cases involving claims for loss of consortium. If lying
> about sex is OK, we might very well consider repealling laws against sexual
> harassment.
>
> >The singular, solitary case of
> >anyone claiming he committed sexual harassment was Paula Jones--and
> >she had an even weaker case than Anita Hill, and it was thrown out on
>
> survived a motion to dismiss. She alleged a few sexual comments, but it's not
> clear that they were "severe and pervasive" enough to meet the relevant
> standard.
>
> Further, a lot of people think that Jones would have won her appeal. Indeed,
> if Clinton and his legal team were certain that she was going to lose, they
> most likely would not have settled. While I do think that her case had
> problems, it was far from frivolous. It's hard for me to see how inviting an
> employee to a hotel room, exposing yourself, and asking for oral sex doesn't at
> least get you to a jury. Granted, her case is undermined because she appears
> not to have been punished for her refusal, but a jury might infer that she
> could reasonably believe at the time that she would be punished, and that's
> probably enough.
>
> And I'm frankly a bit bemused by the notion that referring to yourself as "Long
> Dong Silver" is somehow worse than showing a woman your dong. I think that if
> Clarence Thomas had been accuased of such behavior, he would not have been
> confirmed.
>
> >the grounds that even if she could prove that everything she said was
> >Clinton is because he hasn't done the things that Packwood did and
> >women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
> >never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
> >infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
> >those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.
>
> lay off the Lewinsky scandal and go after Clinton on policy matters; that is,
> after all, what the majority of Americans seem to want. Indeed, if Clinton is
> convicted by the Senate and removed from office, Gore will become the
> incumbant, giving him a clear advantage in 2000. I think that many
> Republicans actually believe that perjury and obstruction of justice are
> serious felonies, and that the President most likely committed them.
>
> I realize that Clinton's partisans would like to suggest that it's just about
> sex, but nobody has even suggested that Clinton should be impheached for having
> an extramarital relationship. The problem is that he almost certainly lied,
> under oath, about that relationship, and he may very well have attempted to
> obstruct justice in order to conceal his perjury.
> --
>
> Pete McCutchen
Well said Pete. I know that "What-Ifs" belong on another NG, but I can
see the following headlines if Clinton were a Republican:
"Feminists March on Washington Demanding Clinton be Impeached,
Blame Republican Congress for Stonewalling on Lustgate Investigation."
"In a statment issued today by NOW, the Feminist group blames
Republicans for fostering an atmosphere favorable to sexual harassment.
'First Bob Packwood, then Clarence Thomas and now President Clinton.
When will Hill, Jones and Wiley ever receive justice?' In response to
the Republican counter-charge that NOW's actions are politically
motivated, NOW's spokesperson stated that if "Clinton were a Democrat,
we would still be outraged."
PMccutc103
James Nicoll
See, for example, www.taliban.com.
--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Victoria Strauss
> In response to
> the Republican counter-charge that NOW's actions are politically
> motivated, NOW's spokesperson stated that if "Clinton were a Democrat,
> we would still be outraged."
All the actions of all the parties in all these cases are politically motivated.
One of the more bizarre aspects of the whole Monicagate thing, for me, is the
spectacle of conservative Republicans--who were entirely ready to dismiss Anita
Hill's allegations as trivial and pointless--jumping on the sexual harassment stick,
and talking about issues of "consent" and "power." One of the most disgusting things
has been the spectacle of feminists--who were ready to send Clarence Hill
packing--trying to find ways of ignoring the allegations against Clinton. If you do
a point-by-point analysis, all sides in these cases are equally morally bankrupt. It
just goes to prove that people take positions not from principle but from political
partisanship, and that issues of ethics are infinitely elastic, depending on which
side of the political fence they fall.
-Victoria
--
Victoria Strauss
THE ARM OF THE STONE (Avon Eos 1998)
Homepage: http://www.sff.net/people/victoriastrauss
Writer Beware: http://www.sfwa.org/Beware/Warnings.html
Rick
>
> daniel patrick duffy wrote:
>
> > the Republican counter-charge that NOW's actions are politically
> > motivated, NOW's spokesperson stated that if "Clinton were a Democrat,
> > we would still be outraged."
>
> One of the more bizarre aspects of the whole Monicagate thing, for me, is the
> spectacle of conservative Republicans--who were entirely ready to dismiss Anita
> Hill's allegations as trivial and pointless--jumping on the sexual harassment stick,
> and talking about issues of "consent" and "power." One of the most disgusting things
> has been the spectacle of feminists--who were ready to send Clarence Hill
> packing--trying to find ways of ignoring the allegations against Clinton. If you do
> a point-by-point analysis, all sides in these cases are equally morally bankrupt. It
> just goes to prove that people take positions not from principle but from political
> partisanship, and that issues of ethics are infinitely elastic, depending on which
> side of the political fence they fall.
>
> -Victoria
> --
I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
Jones like rabid dogs.
daniel patrick duffy
>
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 07:23:33 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Boston wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <368E92...@leading.net>, rang...@leading.net says...
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
> >> >feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
> >> >Jones like rabid dogs.
> >>
> >> NOW feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" and who
> >> attacked Paula Jones like rabid dogs?
> >
> >Given that NOW lobbied hard against Clarence Thomas & co., & has maintained at
> >best an uneasy silence on the subject of Bill Clinton, I'd suggest that it
> >would be rather disingenuous to claim the two subsets of NOW's membership did
> >not overlap. It would also be rather naive to expect anyone to admit belonging
> >to both.
>
> Let us stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that both women
> are telling the truth. I still believe there is a difference between
> repeated incidents persisting after an announcement that they are
> unwelcome over a period of years, and a single incident.
>
> This sets aside any negative career impact either woman may have
> experienced.
> Lynn Calvin
> lca...@interaccess.com
You are describing a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
It's ammusing to watch NOW's mental back flips as they "stand by their
man". A Republican prez would have been crucified by the feminists for
doing the same thing.
John Boston
>
>[snip]
>
>I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
>feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
>Jones like rabid dogs.
I guess I slept through that. Would you mind naming a few
NOW feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" and who
attacked Paula Jones like rabid dogs?
John Boston
Jay Random
Given that NOW lobbied hard against Clarence Thomas & co., & has maintained at
Lynn Calvin
wrote:
>John Boston wrote:
Let us stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that both women
Bill McHale
: I don't think there is hatred, in the sense that the liberals hate
: Nixon. There is anger and frustration at the ability of the liberals to
: ignore the law and to pervert it to their ends. I don't have time to
: list the many cases, but the Clinton Administration's abuses in the
: department of Justice, from killing the Whitewater investigation to the
: A.G's refusal to investigate campaign finance violations are known to
: zall. The liberals sharing President Clinton's moral bankruptcy just
: don't care. Clinton should be impeached for violating the Tenure of
: Office Act (Bill Lann Lee is the most egregious example).
Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed
to investigate just that. After running rough shod over that case he was
never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
in that case. It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that
he turned to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.
As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court more than 70 years ago.
The simple fact of the matter is that the rabid nature with which the
Republicans in the House have persued this indicates a lack of rational
thought on their part. It has been clear since Novemeber that the
Republicans could not achieve a Conviction in the Senate, and that every
step that the Republicans have taken versus the President Reduces their
capital with the American People.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Cambias
> J. Otto Tennant (j...@visi.com) wrote:
>
> : I don't think there is hatred, in the sense that the liberals hate
> : Nixon. There is anger and frustration at the ability of the liberals to
> : ignore the law and to pervert it to their ends. I don't have time to
> : list the many cases, but the Clinton Administration's abuses in the
> : department of Justice, from killing the Whitewater investigation to the
> : A.G's refusal to investigate campaign finance violations are known to
> : zall. The liberals sharing President Clinton's moral bankruptcy just
> : don't care. Clinton should be impeached for violating the Tenure of
> : Office Act (Bill Lann Lee is the most egregious example).
>
> As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
> 110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
> Court more than 70 years ago.
>
What he's referring to is the constitutional requirement that Cabinet
members be approved by the Senate. Clinton has made an end run around
this by simply appointing lots of "acting" department heads. What I find
shocking is that the Senate hasn't taken steps to bring him to account on
it -- ultimately that's a much more serious abuse of power than Clinton's
other crimes.
Cambias
by the way (I know I'm guilty, too) what the HELL does this have to do with SF?
Victoria Strauss
> You are describing a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
> It's ammusing to watch NOW's mental back flips as they "stand by their
> man". A Republican prez would have been crucified by the feminists for
> doing the same thing.
A Republican prez would never have been impeached. Any indictment of one side of the
argument shouldn't leave out an indictment of the other. Conservative Republicans
have been backflipping at least as high in their condemnation of Clinton vs. their
support of Hill. Seems to me that all of these folks, liberal or conservative, are
more like one another than they are like someone with a principle.
Larry Caldwell
> If I had my rolodex here I could come up with half a dozen experts who would
> testify that the power imbalance between Clinton and a very junior employee was
> so great that consent was impossible. If a corporate CEO had sex with a a
> newly-hired entry-level just-out-of-college employee, she could easily claim
> that her consent was not really consent. I'm not saying she'd win -- but such
> a case would likely go to a jury. Such a position is certainly consistent with
> the MacKinnon wing of the feminist movement.
Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
OBSF, I was just thinking that 1999 is nothing at all like what I
expected when I started reading SF 40 years ago. Supercomputers on
every desk, but no artificial intelligence. Thousands of artificial
satellites, but only one clunky space ship that hardly makes low orbit.
No lunar colonies, but prime time TV news programs that discuss the
President of the USA's use of a cigar as a dildo. And now we all know
that Clinton didn't inhale and Monica didn't swallow.
Really strange.
-- Larry
Bill McHale
Distribution:
spahmtrapCambias (cambias@heliograph..edu) wrote:
: In article <76qi4p$acb$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
: What he's referring to is the constitutional requirement that Cabinet
: members be approved by the Senate. Clinton has made an end run around
: this by simply appointing lots of "acting" department heads. What I find
: shocking is that the Senate hasn't taken steps to bring him to account on
: it -- ultimately that's a much more serious abuse of power than Clinton's
: other crimes.
Ok, well that is different... When he said Tenure of Office Act, well I
got echos of Andrew Johnson running through my head.
I will grant that Clinton has failed to get confirmation on alot of his
upper level appointees.. but then again, Congress could have and should
have done something about it long ago... and unless Clinton refuses after
all is said and done should it really be considered grounds for
impeachment.
PMccutc103
>Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
>Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed
>to investigate just that.
The administration did not "kill" the investigation. Nonetheless, they were
hardly forthcoming in producing documents and the like. Perhaps their conduct
did not rise to "obstruction of justice," but we generally do expect the
President to cooperate in criminal investigations.
After running rough shod over that case he was
>never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
>in that case.
Ah, the James Carville line. In fact, Starr produced sufficient evidence to
convict about a dozen people, including a then-sitting governor of Arkansas.
But yes, he did clear the President of wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter.
That should make you happy, no?
>It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that
>he turned to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.
Well, not exactly. Linda Tripp came to him with her story. That story was
linked to Whitewater because of the Vernon Jordan connection. As required by
statute, Starr went to the Attorney General and asked her what to do. She went
to the three judge panel that appointed Starr and they authorized him to expand
his inquiry.
When Tripp came to him he had to take that to the AG. When the panel
authorized him to investigate, he was duty-bound to do so.
>
>As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
>110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
>Court more than 70 years ago.
As a side note, I don't think Clinton should be impeached for violating the
Tenure of Office Act, which was, as you say repealed. However, I will note as
an aside that _Humphrey's Executor_ has been at least undermined by _Morrison
v. Olsen_, though perhaps some might survive. The extent to which Congress can
control the President's power to remove executive officials was debated
inconclusively by the First Congress, and it is an issue that continues to
puzzle constitutional scholars. While a good argument can be made against the
Tenure of Office Act (an argument which I would agree with, by the way), it's a
bit glib to just say that it was unconstitutional. Or to imply that
_Humphrey's Executor_, classic though it is, is going to be the last word on
these matters.
>
>The simple fact of the matter is that the rabid nature with which the
>Republicans in the House have persued this indicates a lack of rational
>thought on their part. It has been clear since Novemeber that the
>Republicans could not achieve a Conviction in the Senate, and that every
>step that the Republicans have taken versus the President Reduces their
>capital with the American People.
>
--
Pete McCutchen
Paul Connelly
> Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
> Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed
> to investigate just that. After running rough shod over that case he was
> never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
> in that case. It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that
> he turned to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.
The best analogy i can think of to the Republican plan to impeach
Clinton (which has been in progress since his election and probably
before he was even inaugurated the first time) is a quote from the
Joseph Heller book _Catch-22_:
"The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was
something to charge him with."
That just about sums up the Special Prosecutor's mandate.
By the way, someone referred to themselves as a "moderate Republican"
earlier in this string. Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
- paul
Rick
>
> Paul Connelly wrote:
> >
> > The best analogy i can think of to the Republican plan to impeach
> > Clinton (which has been in progress since his election and probably
> > before he was even inaugurated the first time) is a quote from the
> > Joseph Heller book _Catch-22_:
> >
> > "The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was
> > something to charge him with."
> >
> > That just about sums up the Special Prosecutor's mandate.
> >
> > By the way, someone referred to themselves as a "moderate Republican"
> > earlier in this string. Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>
> Party. Yeah, right, _all_ your political opponents are extremist loons. Sure.
Yeah--and like there is any such thing as a moderate democrat. Clinton
is the closest thing they have to one.
Jay Random
Jay Random
>
> Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
>
> I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
employer & employee.
Joseph Askew
>I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
>feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
>Jones like rabid dogs.
Myself, I take a middle ground position. I hope both the Religious
Right and the Hard Core Feminist Left (if there is such a thing any
more) take heavy credibility losses on this. Preferably in some other
news group.
Notice the follow-ups.
Joseph
--
Reason Why I'm Never Going to Get an Academic Job Number Three:
"[Monsanto] said that they had carried out 'extensive safety
assessments of new biotech crops' including tests using rats
that have results published in journals" (http://news.bbc.co.uk)
Mariane Desautels
>
> Jay Random wrote:
> >
> > It's drivel like this that caused me to lose all respect for the Democratic
> > Party. Yeah, right, _all_ your political opponents are extremist loons. Sure.
>
What about a moderate ararchist? :-)
Mariane
--
I'm turning off the puter for a few days. E-mail me if you want to be
sure I get your replies. Mind the spamblock.
Jay Random
I don't actually believe that `most' feminists are _not_ members of that
subgroup. Mind you, I define `feminist' not as one who believes in equal
opportunity & rights for women (which is no longer an ism but a given), but
one who _belongs to & actively lobbies for a self-styled feminist
organization_. _Organized_ feminists -- & those are the only ones I apply that
particular `ist' label to -- are nowhere near as moderate or rational as the
general run of women.
Gareth Wilson
> died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>
Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
e-mail gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
> >
>
> Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
In his last few years, younger Arizona Republicans suspected him of
dangerous liberal tendencies, because he supported women's
reproductive rights and said, concerning who could or couldn't serve
in the US military, "You don't need to be straight; you just need to
shoot straight." "Old 'nuke 'em' Goldwater was, on many issues,
_considerably_ to the left of the leadership of the present-day
Republican Party, and assessing his spot on the political spectrum by
where he was in relation to Lyndon Johnson thirty-five years ago can
be somewhat misleading.
Lis Carey
Bill McHale
: wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
: >never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
: >in that case.
: Ah, the James Carville line. In fact, Starr produced sufficient evidence to
: convict about a dozen people, including a then-sitting governor of Arkansas.
: But yes, he did clear the President of wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter.
: That should make you happy, no?
The point is not the other people in the Whitewater investigation. I am
not disputing that there was wrong doing there. However, it is also true
the Starr persued the case with rabid viciousness, not caring whose lives
he destroyed in an attempt to get them to "provide testimony" against
Clinton. I mean really, was it necessary for him to have a 17 year old
supeoned in class? How about making repeated threats of prosecution for
crimes that he had no evidence of?
: >It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that : >he turned
to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.
: >
: >As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
: >110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
: >Court more than 70 years ago.
: As a side note, I don't think Clinton should be impeached for violating the
: Tenure of Office Act, which was, as you say repealed. However, I will note as
: an aside that _Humphrey's Executor_ has been at least undermined by _Morrison
: v. Olsen_, though perhaps some might survive. The extent to which Congress can
: control the President's power to remove executive officials was debated
: inconclusively by the First Congress, and it is an issue that continues to
: puzzle constitutional scholars. While a good argument can be made against the
: Tenure of Office Act (an argument which I would agree with, by the way), it's a
: bit glib to just say that it was unconstitutional. Or to imply that
: _Humphrey's Executor_, classic though it is, is going to be the last word on
: these matters.
Of course it is never the last word.. the Court can and has reversed
itself numerous times in the past, hell they have often enough ignored
entire amendments to the Constitution (For example Segregation) when it
suited the agenda of the Court members.
In any case, the whole question is kind of moot unless Congress were to
reinstate the the Tenure of Office Act.
Bill McHale
<369317...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> <36935928...@mediaone.net>:
Distribution:
Elisabeth Carey (lis....@mediaone.net) wrote:
Hell if you use the standards of the Johnson years, most modern Democrats
don't look all that Liberal. With the exception of a few issues, this
country has generally gotten more conservative over the last 20 years.
Even worse, the Republican party orginization (as opposed to registered
Republicans as a whole) has tended to become conservative even faster.
Lets remember, the reason Dan Quayle was Bush's Vice-President was
essentially a deal cut with the Extreme Right Wing of the Party; a group
that is far more concerned with ideological correctness than with the
capability of a person to do the job.
James Nicoll
Gareth Wilson <gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
>> died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>>
>
>Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
Sometimes nuking them *is* the moderate approach.
Ailsa Murphy
Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com> wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >
> > Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> > perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> > However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> > voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
> >
> > I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
>
> Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
> movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
> employer & employee.
>
people that they haven't consented when they think they have.
-Ailsa
--
But to explicitly advocate cultural relativism ailsa....@tfn.com
on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to Ailsa N.T. Murphy
implicitly assume that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any
absolute values, however, cultural relativism is false. -Theodore Schick
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ailsa Murphy
desautel...@videotron.ca wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > Jay Random wrote:
> > >
> > > It's drivel like this that caused me to lose all respect for the
Democratic
> > > Party. Yeah, right, _all_ your political opponents are extremist loons.
Sure.
> >
> > Yeah--and like there is any such thing as a moderate democrat.
>
> What about a moderate ararchist? :-)
>
Aaron P. Brezenski
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
>> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>> Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
>dangerous liberal tendencies, because he supported women's
>reproductive rights and said, concerning who could or couldn't serve
>in the US military, "You don't need to be straight; you just need to
>shoot straight." "Old 'nuke 'em' Goldwater was, on many issues,
>_considerably_ to the left of the leadership of the present-day
>Republican Party, and assessing his spot on the political spectrum by
>where he was in relation to Lyndon Johnson thirty-five years ago can
>be somewhat misleading.
Especially if you're foolish enough to think politics is so one-dimensional
that it can be adequately described with words like "left", "right", or even
"moderate".
Aaron Brezenski
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."
Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati
Aaron P. Brezenski
>Hell if you use the standards of the Johnson years, most modern Democrats
>don't look all that Liberal. With the exception of a few issues, this
>country has generally gotten more conservative over the last 20 years.
And the "conservatives" would assert that the country has generally gotten
more "liberal" in the last 20 years. Who's right? Who do you define as
"the country"? The entire populace, or that minority of the population
which votes? Or perhaps you mean the sad collection of misfits who are our
eyes and ears, the Media? Or even the 535 elected officials who legislate?
The facts are that the country has passed a very large number of laws in the
last 20 years, and very few repeals of existing laws. I'd assert that this
indicates this "country" is becoming more authoritarian (left or right, does
it matter?) and less free. That sort of fits the evidence better than
claiming the never-ending pendulum-swing between Republocrat and Demublican
is any indication of a trend one way or the other.
>Even worse, the Republican party orginization (as opposed to registered
>Republicans as a whole) has tended to become conservative even faster.
And the Democratic party has retained their... "liberality"... while
consistently insisting that they are "moderate". Has the Democratic party
platform *really* changed all that much in the last 20 years, or have the
words they use to describe the issues changed? At least the Republicans,
demented as they can be, admit they are "conservative" instead of trying to
hide their true colors behind words like "center", "moderate", and "typical
American" (or, worst, "pro-business").
>Lets remember, the reason Dan Quayle was Bush's Vice-President was
>essentially a deal cut with the Extreme Right Wing of the Party; a group
>that is far more concerned with ideological correctness than with the
>capability of a person to do the job.
And Green-Man Gore wasn't a mirror of this situation? Quayle was obviously
a schmuck, but I've heard Gore speak. He's no better, and he was designed
to appeal to the Greens in the same way Quayle was designed to appeal to the
Kooks.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Ailsa Murphy <ailsa....@tfn.com> wrote:
> In article <3692D8F5...@home.com>,
> Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com> wrote:
> > Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> > > perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> > > However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> > > voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
> > >
> > > I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
> >
> > Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
> > movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
> > employer & employee.
> >
> There are also feminists who believe that it's really condescending to tell
> people that they haven't consented when they think they have.
Or as Patrick Nielsen Hayden said (in a quote worth keeping):
"I've been a no-means-no feminist all my adult life. But for that to be
meaningful, yes has to also mean yes. The notion that 'consent' is
impossible between people of different social standing is utterly corrosive
to the idea that free people can make rational decisions."
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | evelyn...@geocities.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"If everyone in Congress who has ever had an affair resigned, I have a feeling
Barney Frank would have the place to himself." -Ailsa Murphy
Josh Jasper
Jay Random wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >
> > Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> > perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> > However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> > voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
> >
> > I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
>
> Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
> movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
> employer & employee.
What part of the word "most" don't you understand?
Mariane Desautels
>
> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 03:29:01 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
>
> I don't actually believe that `most' feminists are _not_ members of that
> subgroup. Mind you, I define `feminist' not as one who believes in equal
> opportunity & rights for women (which is no longer an ism but a given),
Wouldn't that be fantastic.
> but
> one who _belongs to & actively lobbies for a self-styled feminist
> organization_.
They're a frigging minority. Are all WASPs members of a country club?
Are all Republicans in the Senate?
Answer: no.
You're being far too exclusive for any intents and purposes other than
to drive your own self-styled point to roost. Your definition doesn't
help you.
> _Organized_ feminists -- & those are the only ones I apply that
> particular `ist' label to -- are nowhere near as moderate or rational as the
> general run of women.
Where's your proof? And why do you suddenly compare organised feminists
to women in general, instead of feminists in general? Not all women are
feminists, nor are all feminists women. It's a non-equation.
Mariane
--
"let's blur the intentions / and smudge what it stands for / reserve
the pretentions / for those who judge what we dance for / let's get
pissed / and buck the system / get our psyche's kissed / while our
flesh is twistin / it's not very often this army recruits / so let's
go Dancing In Heavy Boots." -- Dalbello
Phil Fraering
>By the way, someone referred to themselves as a "moderate Republican"
>earlier in this string. Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
>died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
And when he was around and politically active, the democrats weren't
saying that. They were too busy running "attack ads" saying he wanted
to start a nuclear war.
Phil
--
Phil Fraering "It is also for adults, of course, except for those
p...@globalreach.net who think they do not want to see a film about
/Will work for *tape*/ anything so preposterous as a seal-woman, and
who will get what they deserve." - Roger Ebert
Phil Fraering
>Hell if you use the standards of the Johnson years, most modern Democrats
>don't look all that Liberal. With the exception of a few issues, this
>country has generally gotten more conservative over the last 20 years.
>Even worse, the Republican party orginization (as opposed to registered
>Republicans as a whole) has tended to become conservative even faster.
>Lets remember, the reason Dan Quayle was Bush's Vice-President was
>essentially a deal cut with the Extreme Right Wing of the Party; a group
>that is far more concerned with ideological correctness than with the
>capability of a person to do the job.
This is only using the skewed definitions of "liberal" and "conservative"
that are all connotation and no meaning, as David Friedman put it.
In many ways, the words don't really have meaning anymore.
J. Otto Tennant
>wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>>Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
>>Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed
>>to investigate just that.
>The administration did not "kill" the investigation. Nonetheless, they were
>hardly forthcoming in producing documents and the like. Perhaps their conduct
>did not rise to "obstruction of justice," but we generally do expect the
>President to cooperate in criminal investigations.
The situation is not quite that simple. (I don't have the names at
hand, but I can find them.) An RFC attorney prepared a criminal
referral regarding Madison Guaranty Trust. Her superiors called her in
and said something like "HQ wan'ts this to be soft-pedalled." She
persisted in the referral and was placed on administrative leavefor
non-sensical reasons. Essentially simultaneously, The Clinton
Adminstration fired aFederal Attorneys (their right, I grant, but a
violation of recent custom). The Little Rock replacement sat on the
referral, directed it to the wrong office in Washingone, and generally
obstructed the investigation. It is, of course, merely a coincidence
that the Little rock Federal Attorney had close tieties to President
Clinton and should have recused herself.
Each individual act (except the attempt to intimidate the RFC
investigator) would be explained, I suppose, by incompetence or
bureaucratic snafu. The wholesale firing of the Federal Attorneys could
explain the snafu, were it not for the close personal relationship (no,
not THAT close) between the President and the replacement Little Rock
Federal Attorney.
Taken as a whole, though, the DOJ and RFC managed, one way or another,
to suppress the criminal referral of the RFC investigator.
>After running rough shod over that case he was
>>never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
>>in that case.
>Ah, the James Carville line. In fact, Starr produced sufficient evidence to
>convict about a dozen people, including a then-sitting governor of Arkansas.
>But yes, he did clear the President of wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter.
>That should make you happy, no?
Indeed, it is probable that Clinton had no direct involvement in the
corruption of the Whitewater investigation; but the corrupt people whom
he appointed did obstruct justice, and he is responsible. The
obfuscation of this can be laid to the fact that, however justified,
indicting most of the Department of Justice would not fly.
[...]
I think I may have made a boo-boo in citing the Tenure of Office Act.
The relevant act (the name of which I seem to have forgotten) limits how
long interim or acting appointments can last --- and Bill Lann Lee's
appointment surely violates that.
>>
>>The simple fact of the matter is that the rabid nature with which the
>>Republicans in the House have persued this indicates a lack of rational
>>thought on their part. It has been clear since Novemeber that the
>>Republicans could not achieve a Conviction in the Senate, and that every
>>step that the Republicans have taken versus the President Reduces their
>>capital with the American People.
>>
Your concern for the standing of the Republicans with the American
People is touching. (Replying to a reply.)
It is actually clear than when the GOP stands for principle, rather than
being "Liberal Lite", its strenght increases, regardless of the
hyperventilation of the liberals and their captive media.
--
J.Otto Tennant jo...@pobox.com
Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.
Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
J. Otto Tennant
>On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 03:29:01 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
>wrote:
>>Larry Caldwell wrote:
>>>
>>> Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
>>> perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
>>> However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
>>> voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
>>>
>>> I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
>>
>>Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
>>movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
>>employer & employee.
>What part of "most" is giving you trouble here?
The part of "most" you don't understand. I think it is clear that
m"most" political feminists _do_ argue, except in the case of the
President of the United States, that "consent" is retrospectively
irrelevant in sexual harrassment cases. And the point is that Miss
Lewinski's consent is irrelevant to the perjury. Her deposition was
required only to establish a pattern of misbehaviour in an unrelated
case. (Viz., that the defendant had a pattern of requesting oral
services from subordinate female employees.)
"Most" feminists will agree with the need to require testimony of other
women in order to establish a pattern of behaviour, and "most" feminists
will agree that consent is irrelevant IN ESTABLISHING THE PATTERN.
"Most" will also argue that the notion of "consent" between a woman
subordinate and a male superior is impossible: except, of course, if
the male is a "liberal" and the female is an unpaid intern.
Great Ghu, do you seriously imagine that the example of the President
and the Intern will not be used to make hash of the administrative law
the feminists have worked so hard to establish?
It's OK to commit perjury if the girl consented? Or it's OK to suborn
perjury, if the girl agrees to commit perjury? There are more levels to
this than your exercise in sophistry implies. I know what "most" means,
and I know that most politically active feminists are not so much
interested in the rights, priveleges, and responsibilities of women as
in forwarding a far-left agenda --- to the extent that they will accept
a priapic perjuring adulterer as their poster-boy, lest their real
agenda be compromised.
Joe
wrote:
snip
>The facts are that the country has passed a very large number of laws in the
>last 20 years, and very few repeals of existing laws. I'd assert that this
>indicates this "country" is becoming more authoritarian (left or right, does
>it matter?) and less free. That sort of fits the evidence better than
>claiming the never-ending pendulum-swing between Republocrat and Demublican
>is any indication of a trend one way or the other.
>
As far as I can make out this adding of statues is a general thing in
all repersentative democracies. This legislitave inflation seem to
befued my the need of those in power to be seen to be doing something
in response to the crisis of the moment in order to justify their
jobs.
I remember an article in the Economist a few years ago where this
phenonemon was noted and they reckoned thath the British Parlement had
passed more law since 1945 than it its entire previous existance.
Now (in a perhaps vain effort to wrench this thread back on topic) has
anyone in SciFi ever extrapolated the effect on socitiey of a couple
of centuries of passing law to be seen to be doing something
regardless of its effect has on that society.
I suspect it might turn out like the Late Western Roman Empire, except
there it was the tax burden imposed byt the Imperial bureaucracy.
In that the burden of law will eventually alienate the citizen which
will cause the elite to pass more law in an effort to shore up the
system so when an external pressure comes the state proves hollow and
unable to recover from the shock
Joe
--
***********************************************************************
Since my earlier anti spam measure did not work]
Hitting the reply button will not work. My email address is jdineen at
iol dot ie
Larry Caldwell
> It's OK to commit perjury if the girl consented? Or it's OK to suborn
> perjury, if the girl agrees to commit perjury? There are more levels to
> this than your exercise in sophistry implies. I know what "most" means,
> and I know that most politically active feminists are not so much
> interested in the rights, priveleges, and responsibilities of women as
> in forwarding a far-left agenda --- to the extent that they will accept
> a priapic perjuring adulterer as their poster-boy, lest their real
> agenda be compromised.
It is not clear to me that there is actionable perjury here. By the law
of many states, a lie has to materially affect the outcome of a case for
it to be an actionable offense. Since the Paula Jones lawsuit was
dismissed for unrelated reasons, nothing Clinton said affected the
outcome of that trial, and the question of perjury is moot.
I think it is pretty obvious that the supreme court erred badly in making
Clinton subject to civil suit while in office. Presidential immunity is
designed to prevent exactly this situation; using the judicial system to
persecute a minority president. It is pretty obvious to me that the
Republicans are subverting the constitution with this process.
-- Larry
John VanSickle
>
> Jay Random wrote:
>
> > Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> > > perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> > > However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> > > voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
> > >
> > > I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
> >
> > Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
> > movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
> > employer & employee.
>
That depends on how you define "most."
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Regards,
John
--
"Hamlet, as performed in the Brooklyn Shakespeare Festival:
'To be, or what?' " -- Steve Pearl
Phil Fraering
>The facts are that the country has passed a very large number of laws in the
>last 20 years, and very few repeals of existing laws. I'd assert that this
>indicates this "country" is becoming more authoritarian (left or right, does
>it matter?) and less free. That sort of fits the evidence better than
>claiming the never-ending pendulum-swing between Republocrat and Demublican
>is any indication of a trend one way or the other.
I think a decent model is that the pendulum is attached to a ratchet,
which has been set to "tighten."
Anton Sherwood
: >Hell if you use the standards of the Johnson years, most modern Democrats
: >don't look all that Liberal. With the exception of a few issues, this
: >country has generally gotten more conservative over the last 20 years.
Aaron P. Brezenski <tina...@primenet.com> writes
: And the "conservatives" would assert that the country has generally gotten
: more "liberal" in the last 20 years. Who's right? Who do you define as
: "the country"? The entire populace, or that minority of the population
: which votes? Or perhaps you mean the sad collection of misfits who are our
: eyes and ears, the Media? Or even the 535 elected officials who legislate?
Surely the coiffure corps and the anointed pundits are too comfortable
to be called "misfits".
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Gareth Wilson
>
> And when he was around and politically active, the democrats weren't
> saying that. They were too busy running "attack ads" saying he wanted
> to start a nuclear war.
Isn't generally accepted that under Goldwater the Vietnam War would have
lasted only four more hours?
Paul Connelly
gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
> >
>
> Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
By today's standards, sure. Plus he was a patriot, he
believed in the United States of America, whereas the
current bunch of Republicans believe in the World State
of Megacorparations. There really is not a whole lot
of resemblance between the current parties as they are
today and what they were like when i grew up ('50s/'60s).
I like the fact that one of the other posters responded
to my post by clucking, "see how low you Democrats will
go!" or words to that effect. Right theory, wrong universe.
I'm an independent not a Democrat. The Democrats are bad
too, just nowhere near as bad as the current Republicans.
These are not Eisenhower or Goldwater or Dirksen Republicans
anymore. Too bad.
- paul
Rick
>
> I like the fact that one of the other posters responded
> to my post by clucking, "see how low you Democrats will
> go!" or words to that effect. Right theory, wrong universe.
> I'm an independent not a Democrat. The Democrats are bad
> too, just nowhere near as bad as the current Republicans.
> These are not Eisenhower or Goldwater or Dirksen Republicans
> anymore. Too bad.
>
> - paul
I agree that the Democrats are bad too, but disagree that they are
"nowhere near as bad" as the Republicans. Both parties are equally bad,
and apart from a few exceptions, nearly undistinguishable from each
other. The GOP wants to control our sex lives and the Democrats want to
control everything else. Both parties are slaves to the
corporations---large corporations make equal donations to both parties.
The Republicans main disadvantage is a press corps that is more friendly
to the Democrats. Were I given a real alternative, I would not vote for
either major party. The only reason I usually choose the GOP over the
Democrats is that they are less likely to pass onerous laws---or get
anything done at all. The way our government is currently, I prefer
legislative gridlock.
yon lew
: In article <rhXk2.2780$TO5....@ptah.visi.com>, j...@visi.com writes:
:
: > It's OK to commit perjury if the girl consented? Or it's OK to suborn
: > perjury, if the girl agrees to commit perjury? There are more levels to
: > this than your exercise in sophistry implies. I know what "most" means,
: > and I know that most politically active feminists are not so much
: > interested in the rights, priveleges, and responsibilities of women as
: > in forwarding a far-left agenda --- to the extent that they will accept
: > a priapic perjuring adulterer as their poster-boy, lest their real
: > agenda be compromised.
: It is not clear to me that there is actionable perjury here. By the law
: of many states, a lie has to materially affect the outcome of a case for
: it to be an actionable offense. Since the Paula Jones lawsuit was
: dismissed for unrelated reasons, nothing Clinton said affected the
: outcome of that trial, and the question of perjury is moot.
The trick is however that Clinton wasn't impeached for perjury in the
Jones case--that article was one of the two that failed. He was
impeached for perjury before the Starr grand jury.
: I think it is pretty obvious that the supreme court erred badly in making
: Clinton subject to civil suit while in office. Presidential immunity is
: designed to prevent exactly this situation; using the judicial system to
: persecute a minority president. It is pretty obvious to me that the
: Republicans are subverting the constitution with this process.
Sneaking those sex hormones into Clinton's breakfast cereal to turn him
into a horn dog was pretty clever.
Michael Brazier
>
> In article <369317...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> > Paul Connelly wrote:
> > > Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> > > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
> > Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
> By today's standards, sure. Plus he was a patriot, he
> believed in the United States of America, whereas the
> current bunch of Republicans believe in the World State
> of Megacorparations. There really is not a whole lot
> of resemblance between the current parties as they are
> today and what they were like when i grew up ('50s/'60s).
Well, I'm afraid you haven't the least idea what you're talking about.
First: The current crop of Republicans are, precisely, "Goldwater
Republicans", except for the ones belonging to the "religious right".
The people who cut their political teeth in Goldwater's 1964 campaign
went on to staff Reagan's campaigns in 1980 and 1984, and remain a force
to be reckoned with. And, as it happens, the "Eisenhower Republicans"
were their chief opponents within the GOP. The change from the 1950's
GOP to today's GOP is, very largely, Goldwater's work.
Second: Goldwater was, and his successors are, pro-_market_; their
position on economic issues is a variation of the libertarian credo.
Eisenhower Republicans (or Clinton Democrats) could be called "believers
in the World State of Megacorporations" without much distortion; but no
wing of the modern GOP deserves the label.
--
Michael Brazier
Larry Caldwell
this_will_not_work@not_here.com writes:
> Now (in a perhaps vain effort to wrench this thread back on topic) has
> anyone in SciFi ever extrapolated the effect on socitiey of a couple
> of centuries of passing law to be seen to be doing something
> regardless of its effect has on that society.
I'm not aware of any SF on this theme, other than the obvious Heinlein
references. However, in 1973 the Oregon legislature revised the entire
state criminal code, removing about 20% of criminal offenses entirely
from the code. They also revised common law marriage statutes to reflect
cohabitant partners. If you are together for 2 years and have a child,
there is no way an insurance company can deny dependent coverage for your
spouse, no matter if you are married or not.
In a state with the initiative process, the criminal code had become
rediculously complex, and things were illegal that nobody does any more
for any reason, or that everybody does without thinking that they might
be illegal.
Electorates are even worse than legislatures at passing completely
unenforceable laws.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
> I like the fact that one of the other posters responded
> to my post by clucking, "see how low you Democrats will
> go!" or words to that effect. Right theory, wrong universe.
> I'm an independent not a Democrat. The Democrats are bad
> too, just nowhere near as bad as the current Republicans.
> These are not Eisenhower or Goldwater or Dirksen Republicans
> anymore. Too bad.
As a fellow Independent, I beg to differ. Republicans tend to be
fiscally responsible, so they need to be in control of legislative
expendatures. However, they really really suck at social policy, and
should not be allowed to lead.
I like a republican congress and a democratic president. The only
presidential candidate that the Republicans could nominate that I would
vote for is Liz Dole. In this case, I really think the best man for the
job is a woman. It would also spike the right-wing vampires right
through the heart, which I would love.
-- Larry
J. Brad Hicks
off-topic) discussion, the "Goldwater Republicans" vs "Eisenhower
Republicans" is itself a gross oversimplification. Paul Connelly's
description of the Goldwater faction conflates just about every faction
that went into the Reagan Coalition -- including several factions that
Goldwater himself repudiated, both in the 1960s and in the 1980s.
In my thinking, the modern Republican party is a coalition party made up
of the following primary groupings of voters:
o Corporate Republicans ("What's good for America is good for General Motors,
and vice versa.")
o The New World Order (which is itself a merger of what's left of the old
Anti-Communist League with the Eisenhower/Rockefeller "global policeman"
Ivy League strategists)
o Social Conservatives ("America is and always was a Christian Nation.")
o Libertarian Republicans ("Reduce the size of government.")
ObSF, if just because I'm in rasf.written: the first introduction I got to
parliamentary politics was in Heinlein's _Double Star_; I thought the idea
deserved consideration. Now, I realize that the so-called two American
political parties ARE just that, placeholders for a parliamentary society.
But anyway, back when Goldwater ran for president, the SocCons were
solidly Democrat, a legacy of the days when "family values" meant "white
family values." The strategic genius move of the Reagan campaign team was
to realize that the SocCons who had aligned themselves with the Democrats
because the blamed the Republican Party for Reconstruction, were now just
as offended with the Democrats over the Voting Rights Act and
desegregation. Prying that big a coalition away from the Democrats and
over the Republicans (and if one believes certain conspiracy theorists,
using fired CIA operatives to make sure that the hostages didn't come back
from Iran) was what got Reagan elected.
There are intrinsic conflicts within both parties, but since we're talking
about the Republican coalition, there are nearly irreconcilable
differences over social issues between the SocCons and the Libertarians;
lately the SocCons have won so many local and party position fights that
the Libertarians have been all but squeezed out of the Republican
coalition. When they give up "Bull Moosing" around with this goofball
third party idea, that party will end up going back to one or other of the
two parties, depending on which one offers them a better deal. Similarly,
there is a nearly irreconcilable difference between the NWO and the
Libertarians, because Libertarians lean towards isolationism.
As I understand Goldwater's politics, both from learning them FROM old
party hacks who'd been at the 1964 convention and from reading the old
man's autibiography (a good book, btw); a "Goldwater Republican" is pretty
much pro-corporate, anti-Communist but still isolationist at heart, and
100% libertarian on social issues. That latter point has all but driven
the Goldwater Republicans like myself out of the party, and for all
practical purposes, into the political wilderness.
Mark my words: we'll miss Newt. Newt gave the SocCons a fair amount of lip
service, but was (like a lot of SF fans, which he is) a Goldwater
Republican at heart, to hear him talk. Newt's bailout leaves the SocCons
in the driver seat of the Republican Party.
Now, whether or not that puts America as a nation on the path to _The
Handmaid's Tale_ (you wondered if I was going to get back to the topic,
didn't you?) depends on a couple of things. To assume that it is, it seems
to me that you have to first assume that (1) the SocCons' victories are
permanent, and (2) contrary to the evidence (such as voter reaction every
time Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson open their mouths in public), doing so
will make the Republican Party more popular and more powerful instead of
less.
What's more, her specific scenario seems to assume that the spy apparatus
in this country can be persuaded to accept and even embrace an
isolationist policy long enough to align themselves with the SocCons in a
coup. And =that=, I'm afraid, is enough of a stretch that I accepted it
only under my "suspension of disbelief" filter.
--
J. Brad Hicks
U.S. Shamanics & Mechanical Zen
mailto:in...@us-shamanics.com
http://www.us-shamanics.com
Franklin Harris
J. Brad Hicks wrote in message ...
>In my thinking, the modern Republican party is a coalition party made up
>of the following primary groupings of voters:
>
> o Corporate Republicans ("What's good for America is good for General
Motors,
> and vice versa.")
> o The New World Order (which is itself a merger of what's left of the old
> Anti-Communist League with the Eisenhower/Rockefeller "global
policeman"
> Ivy League strategists)
> o Social Conservatives ("America is and always was a Christian Nation.")
> o Libertarian Republicans ("Reduce the size of government.")
The above isn't a bad breakdown, but I'd make two "corrections": (1) it
seems to me that the "Corporate" and "NWO" Republicans are pretty much the
same people, and (2) there is an additional faction that is
nativist/protectionist. The nativist faction, best represented by Pat
Buchanan, has certain similarities with the social conservatives, but their
focus is economics rather than culture. (Buchanan still talks about a
culture war, but it has taken a back seat to his populist economics.)
All this makes for interesting shifting alliances:
(1) Libertarians and corporates against nativists and (some) social cons on
trade
(2) Libertarians and nativists vs. corporates on most other foreign policy
issues
(3) Libertarians and social cons vs. corporates on *some* size-of-gov't
issues
(4) Libertarians and corporates vs. social cons and most nativists on social
issues
With all this, you can see why some of us libertarians had rather just play
with our "goofball" third party. :)
--
Franklin Harris
tfha...@hiwaay.net
http://home.hiwaay.net/~tfharris
Joe
Caldwell) wrote:
>In article <36950aee...@news.iol.ie>,
>this_will_not_work@not_here.com writes:
>
>> Now (in a perhaps vain effort to wrench this thread back on topic) has
>> anyone in SciFi ever extrapolated the effect on socitiey of a couple
>> of centuries of passing law to be seen to be doing something
>> regardless of its effect has on that society.
>
>I'm not aware of any SF on this theme, other than the obvious Heinlein
>references. However, in 1973 the Oregon legislature revised the entire
>state criminal code, removing about 20% of criminal offenses entirely
>from the code. They also revised common law marriage statutes to reflect
>cohabitant partners. If you are together for 2 years and have a child,
>there is no way an insurance company can deny dependent coverage for your
>spouse, no matter if you are married or not.
>
I wonder how this compared with all the other stuff they passed.
However, taking it as a net reduction in law, all I can say is good
stuff. Hope more legislatures showed the same sense.
>In a state with the initiative process, the criminal code had become
>rediculously complex, and things were illegal that nobody does any more
>for any reason, or that everybody does without thinking that they might
>be illegal.
>
>Electorates are even worse than legislatures at passing completely
>unenforceable laws.
>
I wonder does this depend on the nature of the initiative process.
Anyone from Switzerland on the group and care to comment.
I does seem that the worst initiatives (and possibly ballot
initiatives ) are concieved in the midst of some 'crisis' (usually one
that is nothing of the sort) about which a lot of hysteria has been
built up. Alot of this hysteria seems to be pure hype as a couple of
months later nobody seems to be worried about the issue, but the
leglislatio in in train at that stage and the party in power cannot
call it off as if they do it will be used against them at the next
election.
regards
J. Brad Hicks
<tfha...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>The above isn't a bad breakdown, but I'd make two "corrections": (1) it
>seems to me that the "Corporate" and "NWO" Republicans are pretty much the
>same people, and
Oh, no way. I mean, sure, there are individuals who span the gap, just as
with all of these groups. But there are distinct subcultures within the
party who are energized by different issues. How many Corporate
Republicans give a crap about Bosnia? How many NWO'ers care about the
capital gains tax cut?
>(2) there is an additional faction that is
>nativist/protectionist.
I want to think about that, but you're probably right.
>With all this, you can see why some of us libertarians had rather just play
>with our "goofball" third party. :)
The key word here is "play." At one point I knew most about half of the
Missouri Libertarian Party officials (one of them, who shares your last
name, is an old friend) and several of the candidates. To the best of my
awareness, NONE of them was willing to do any of the things it takes to be
a real political candidate or a real political party in America.
No, I agree with the analysts who've said that the future of the
Libertarian Party is the same as the former fate of the Bull Moose Party
-- third parties don't make major victories, they just manage to get their
issues coopted by one of the two real parties.
ObSF: A natural conspiracy theory would be to assume that the mathematics
of Kenneth J. Arrow's theorems about the non-transitivity of the Social
Choice Function for number of alternatives > 2 was actually worked out by
the Illuminati (or other conspiratorial proper noun of your choice) back
in the late 18th century, and that that's why they imposed the two party
system on us -- as Arrow (was allowed to have?) proved back in 1950, it is
impossible to have a "fair" election with more than two candidates or
proposals.
Michael Brazier
> In my thinking, the modern Republican party is a coalition party made up
> of the following primary groupings of voters:
>
> o Corporate Republicans ("What's good for America is good for General Motors,
> and vice versa.")
> o The New World Order (which is itself a merger of what's left of the old
> Anti-Communist League with the Eisenhower/Rockefeller "global policeman"
> Ivy League strategists)
> o Social Conservatives ("America is and always was a Christian Nation.")
> o Libertarian Republicans ("Reduce the size of government.")
You're certainly a lot closer to the mark than Paul Connelly was, I'll
give you that.
> But anyway, back when Goldwater ran for president, the SocCons were
> solidly Democrat, a legacy of the days when "family values" meant "white
> family values." The strategic genius move of the Reagan campaign team was
> to realize that the SocCons who had aligned themselves with the Democrats
> because the blamed the Republican Party for Reconstruction, were now just
> as offended with the Democrats over the Voting Rights Act and desegregation.
You're conflating two different groups here; the "SocCons" of 1964 were
Southern segregationists, a faction that's pretty much dissolved.
Today's "SocCons" are the evangelical Christians, who focus on very
different issues; what brought them into politics, as a Republican bloc,
was the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.
--
Michael Brazier
PMccutc103
>At the risk of complicating an already complicated (and probably
>off-topic) discussion, the "Goldwater Republicans" vs "Eisenhower
>Republicans" is itself a gross oversimplification. Paul Connelly's
Of course it is. But it's still worth noting that, at the time of the 1964
election, many of Goldwater's supporters railed against "Eisenhower
Republicans." (Or at least so I'm told. Since I was born a few months before
the '64 election, I was not particularly active politically at that time.) It
was a category that made sense to the persons
I do think that there is a faction of the Republican party which is
anti-ideological in the sense that it rejects the notion that the Republican
Party should have a different vision about the nature and extent of state power
than do the democrats. These Republicans, whom I call "country club
Republicans" but who you might as well call "Eisenhower Republicans" or even
"Eisenhower-Nixon-Ford-Bush-Dole Republicans" really don't want a government
which is that much different than what the Democrats want. They just want the
spoils to go to their buddies at the country club rather than to the dem's
buddies.
The constituency for the country club Republicans are the sorts of people who
really don't want less government but who maybe own a car dealership and don't
think that "our kind of people" would ever stoop to vote democratic.
The fact that Bush was criticized for lacking "the vision thing" demonstrates
the extent to which the Goldwater revolution succeeded. At the same time,
however, the fact that people like Bush and Dole were nominated demonstrates
that the country club Republicans still exist in large numbers. And in some
states, like my home state, Illinois, they predominate. Which is why we elect
governors like Jim Edgar and George Ryan.
>description of the Goldwater faction conflates just about every faction
>that went into the Reagan Coalition -- including several factions that
>Goldwater himself repudiated, both in the 1960s and in the 1980s.
>
>In my thinking, the modern Republican party is a coalition party made up
>of the following primary groupings of voters:
Note that these factions are the factions of those members of the party who are
ideologically motivated. I'm arguing that there is a large segmant that is not
so motivated.
>
> o Corporate Republicans ("What's good for America is good for General
>Motors,
> and vice versa.")
OK, well maybe a lot of the country-clubbers fit into this group.
Note, though, that even generally pro-Corporate types fall into two categories.
One group is pro business but not tied to existing enterprises, sort of an
even more waterered-down version of the quasi-libertarians that you talke about
below. The other pro-corporate types absolutely love the mixed-economy
capitalists, the ADMs of the world who use subsidies and special favors galore.
Note also that while the Dems may rail against "corporate welfare," they don't
really seem all that intent on abolishing it. ADM did get ethanol subsidies
through a Democratic Congress as well, you know.
> o The New World Order (which is itself a merger of what's left of the old
> Anti-Communist League with the Eisenhower/Rockefeller "global policeman"
> Ivy League strategists)
> o Social Conservatives ("America is and always was a Christian Nation.")
I'm not sure how this fits in, but in the activist/pundit class, there are also
what I like to call "Authoritarian Republicans." Not just Pat Robertson and
his ilk, but people like Bill Bennett and (these days) Robert Bork. SoCons
without the biblical baggage of the Christian Right. And people who just like
telling other people what to do, people like the unlamented Dan Lundgren, who
really wanted to toss the potheads in jail, AIDS patient or not.
> o Libertarian Republicans ("Reduce the size of government.")
Note, though, that this includes a lot of libertarian-leaning people, not just
"pure" libertarians of the sort who might vote for the LP. People who don't
want to abolish government ownership of roads and legalize heroin tomorrow but
who generally think that free markets work better than government. Kind of
like Governor Body, now that I think of it.
Libertarian-leaners are a constituency that is easily frightened off when
candidates start making authoritarian noises. That was, I think, one of
Reagan's brilliant political attributes. He was able to appeal to the SoCons
without driving away the quasi-libertarians.
>
>ObSF, if just because I'm in rasf.written: the first introduction I got to
>parliamentary politics was in Heinlein's _Double Star_; I thought the idea
>deserved consideration. Now, I realize that the so-called two American
>political parties ARE just that, placeholders for a parliamentary society.
Can you unpack that a bit?
>
>But anyway, back when Goldwater ran for president, the SocCons were
>solidly Democrat, a legacy of the days when "family values" meant "white
>family values." The strategic genius move of the Reagan campaign team was
>to realize that the SocCons who had aligned themselves with the Democrats
>because the blamed the Republican Party for Reconstruction, were now just
>as offended with the Democrats over the Voting Rights Act and
>desegregation.
I think that's a bit unfair. One of the interesting thing about the Promise
Keepers (whom one would think of as being SoCons, I think) is that their
speaking events are racially integrated. Nor are all their members white.
Likewise, even Pat Robertson has a black sidekick, or at least he used to.
I honestly don't believe that if the SoCons were to win a major electoral
victory so that they became the majority (not just an element of a coalition
making up a majority party), that they would reverse all the gains of Civil
Rights. Oh, they might diddle around with the procedures for Title VII claims
and they'd probably get rid of affirmative action, but they wouldn't bring back
Jim Crow or send black people to concentration camps or something.
I do thihk that the SoCons would sweep away the gains of the gay rights
movement and probably enforce obscenity laws and the like. There really is an
authoritarian impulse there. But I honestly don't think that race is really
that much of a factor in the SoCon agenda. But maybe that's wishful thinking
on my part.
Prying that big a coalition away from the Democrats and
>over the Republicans (and if one believes certain conspiracy theorists,
>using fired CIA operatives to make sure that the hostages didn't come back
>from Iran)
I've never seen any compelling (or even halfway-compelling) evidence of that.
I do think that Reagan and his team were worried that Carter would try to
arrange to spring the hostages just before the election, but I've never seen
any real evidence that they manipulated events so as to prevent this.
Nor, in hindsight, do I think that even an October surprise would have saved
Jimmy Carter.
was what got Reagan elected.
>
>There are intrinsic conflicts within both parties, but since we're talking
>about the Republican coalition, there are nearly irreconcilable
>differences over social issues between the SocCons and the Libertarians;
>lately the SocCons have won so many local and party position fights that
>the Libertarians have been all but squeezed out of the Republican
>coalition. When they give up "Bull Moosing" around with this goofball
>third party idea, that party will end up going back to one or other of the
>two parties, depending on which one offers them a better deal. Similarly,
At present I think it's unlikely that the dems are going to make room for the
libertarian types. The democratic party really is committed to state
intervention at all sorts of levels. And the "New Democrats" are even worse.
The charm of the old Democrats was that even if they wanted to nationalize half
the economy, you could count on them to support the First Amendment and to
stand firm on civil liberties/police power type issues. New Democrats want to
nationalize half the economy, but they appeal to Republican constituencies by
voting to censor the internet and let cops run riot. All the vices of old
democrats, and none of their virtues.
>there is a nearly irreconcilable difference between the NWO and the
>Libertarians, because Libertarians lean towards isolationism.
Again, a bit off. Libertarians have opposed various military adventures, and
they generally believe in a substantially more limited role for the Department
of Defense: i.e., protecting the United States from attack. They are not,
however, Buchanan-style _economic_ isolationists. As far as trade goes, they
are most emphatically anti-isolationist.
>
>As I understand Goldwater's politics, both from learning them FROM old
>party hacks who'd been at the 1964 convention and from reading the old
>man's autibiography (a good book, btw); a "Goldwater Republican" is pretty
>much pro-corporate, anti-Communist but still isolationist at heart, and
Depends on what you mean by "pro-corporate." A libertarian position is
pro-corporate in the sense that it would eliminate certain regulations and
scale back things like antitrust enforcement. However, it opposes things like
corporate welfare and special tax breaks for particular companies.
>100% libertarian on social issues. That latter point has all but driven
>the Goldwater Republicans like myself out of the party, and for all
>practical purposes, into the political wilderness.
Well, I don't know the extent to which Republicans really support all the
social-issues stuff, anyway. While many give lip-service to these social
issues, you've seen very little real movement on them.
>
>Mark my words: we'll miss Newt. Newt gave the SocCons a fair amount of lip
>service, but was (like a lot of SF fans, which he is) a Goldwater
>Republican at heart, to hear him talk. Newt's bailout leaves the SocCons
>in the driver seat of the Republican Party.
Ah. Great minds think alike.
>
>Now, whether or not that puts America as a nation on the path to _The
>Handmaid's Tale_ (you wondered if I was going to get back to the topic,
>didn't you?) depends on a couple of things. To assume that it is, it seems
>to me that you have to first assume that (1) the SocCons' victories are
>permanent,
It's also a bit of an exaggeration of the actual SoCon position, but I suppose
that's acceptable for the sort of polemic that _The Handmaid's Tail_ is
supposed to be. I mean, I don't really think that even Pat Robertson would
supoort that sort of society in his heart of hearts, and I think that goes
double for the average SoCon voter. A lot of people who don't want their kids
reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" would blanche at putting gays to death.
and (2) contrary to the evidence (such as voter reaction every
>time Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson open their mouths in public), doing so
>will make the Republican Party more popular and more powerful instead of
>less.
The problem, as you note, is that the SoCons drive the quasi-libertarians away.
Particularly when they sound mean, as Buchanan is wont to do. (Robertson
doesn't sound mean; he just sounds kooky.)
>
>What's more, her specific scenario seems to assume that the spy apparatus
>in this country can be persuaded to accept and even embrace an
>isolationist policy long enough to align themselves with the SocCons in a
>coup. And =that=, I'm afraid, is enough of a stretch that I accepted it
>only under my "suspension of disbelief" filter.
>
And also that the national-security types were _able_ to pull of a coup. Hell,
Ollie North couldn't sell some arms and launder the money without getting
caught; I think that stagine a coup would be well above his level of
competence. (Have you heard Sandy Berger try to talk? A coup, him? Please.)
--
Pete McCutchen
David Owen-Cruise
[Whole lots of good points.]
>Kind of like Governor Body, now that I think of it.
Pete, you can't make fun of our governor without having sat through the whole
sad sorry spectacle which was the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial campaign.
Grassroots level people in both the DFL and IR parties are asking "How did we
end up with such a smarmy twerp as our candidate?" Let's just say that the
rational, polite, well reasoned candidate was the one who wore a feather boa
as a pro wrestler.
[social conservatives and race]
> But I honestly don't think that race is really
>that much of a factor in the SoCon agenda. But maybe that's wishful thinking
>on my part.
>
I'd agree. There are, after all, social conservatives of all skin colors, and
they agree on the vast majority of issues, AFAIK. The big factor on the
agenda seems to be sex, with abortion as the lightning rod, and the teaching
of evolution apparently as a side cause.
[even more good stuff]
ObSF: Why is it that most writers' social conservatives just don't ring true?
They always seem to get written as mouth frothing fanatics, instead of the
relentlessly sincere people I've run into.
[My spell checker suggested "obsess" for "ObSF." Is it trying to tell me
something?]
--
David Owen-Cruise
"Blessed are they who learn from their mistakes, for they shall make,
if not necessarily fewer of them, different and more interesting ones."
Dorothy J. Heydt
gur...@saruman.wizard.net
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, David Owen-Cruise wrote:
[snip]
> ObSF: Why is it that most writers' social conservatives just don't ring true?
> They always seem to get written as mouth frothing fanatics, instead of the
> relentlessly sincere people I've run into.
[snip]
Interesting...I wonder how many SF authors are liberals? I know Asimov
was....
I dunno why it is, but I tend to agree with you about it being there.
The Professor
Gareth Wilson
>
> It's also a bit of an exaggeration of the actual SoCon position, but I suppose
> that's acceptable for the sort of polemic that _The Handmaid's Tail_ is
> supposed to be. I mean, I don't really think that even Pat Robertson would
> supoort that sort of society in his heart of hearts, and I think that goes
> double for the average SoCon voter.
I'll admit now I only saw the movie of "Handmaid's Tale". But there
seemed to be something screwy about the religion that ran the theocracy.
You'd assume it was fundamentalist Christianity, but they never
mentioned Christ, never featured a cross on any of their paraphenalia,
actually said that the _Old_ Testament was their only moral compass, and
there was even mention of fighting a guerilla war against Baptists (so
Pat Robertson probably _wouldn't_ like that society). Is this just a
weird distortion of the book, or weren't they Christians at all?
Jay Random
>
> PMccutc103 wrote:
> >
> > It's also a bit of an exaggeration of the actual SoCon position, but I suppose
> > that's acceptable for the sort of polemic that _The Handmaid's Tail_ is
> > supposed to be. I mean, I don't really think that even Pat Robertson would
> > supoort that sort of society in his heart of hearts, and I think that goes
> > double for the average SoCon voter.
>
> seemed to be something screwy about the religion that ran the theocracy.
> You'd assume it was fundamentalist Christianity, but they never
> mentioned Christ, never featured a cross on any of their paraphenalia,
> actually said that the _Old_ Testament was their only moral compass, and
> there was even mention of fighting a guerilla war against Baptists (so
> Pat Robertson probably _wouldn't_ like that society). Is this just a
> weird distortion of the book, or weren't they Christians at all?
Hollywood has never shown any knowledge of Christianity. The one piece of
Christian theology that seems to be firmly ensconced in every L.A.
screenwriter's brain is that nuns can fly.
Jonathan W Hendry
> > > that's acceptable for the sort of polemic that _The Handmaid's Tail_ is
> > > supposed to be. I mean, I don't really think that even Pat Robertson would
> > > supoort that sort of society in his heart of hearts, and I think that goes
> > > double for the average SoCon voter.
> >
> > seemed to be something screwy about the religion that ran the theocracy.
> > You'd assume it was fundamentalist Christianity, but they never
> > mentioned Christ, never featured a cross on any of their paraphenalia,
> > actually said that the _Old_ Testament was their only moral compass, and
> > there was even mention of fighting a guerilla war against Baptists (so
> > Pat Robertson probably _wouldn't_ like that society). Is this just a
> > weird distortion of the book, or weren't they Christians at all?
> Hollywood has never shown any knowledge of Christianity. The one piece of
> Christian theology that seems to be firmly ensconced in every L.A.
> screenwriter's brain is that nuns can fly.
It seems to me that the really extreme Christian groups see the
New Testament as an epilogue to the good stuff. The Fred Phelps,
'God Hates Fags' types really go for the smiting and retribution
stuff of the Old Testament.
Eli Bishop
gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>PMccutc103 wrote:
>>
>> It's also a bit of an exaggeration of the actual SoCon position, but I
>> suppose that's acceptable for the sort of polemic that _The Handmaid's Tail_
>> is supposed to be. I mean, I don't really think that even Pat Robertson
>> would supoort that sort of society in his heart of hearts, and I think that
>> goes double for the average SoCon voter.
[that's Tale, not Tail]
>I'll admit now I only saw the movie of "Handmaid's Tale". But there
>seemed to be something screwy about the religion that ran the theocracy.
>You'd assume it was fundamentalist Christianity, but they never
>mentioned Christ, never featured a cross on any of their paraphenalia,
>actually said that the _Old_ Testament was their only moral compass, and
>there was even mention of fighting a guerilla war against Baptists (so
>Pat Robertson probably _wouldn't_ like that society). Is this just a
>weird distortion of the book, or weren't they Christians at all?
You're not far off; the point was that in the opinion of Atwood (and many
Christians -- I don't know if she is one), far-right politics are not
compatible with the teachings of Jesus. Therefore the Gilead crowd
soft-pedaled the New Testament and kept the Bible locked away in case
anyone might read the subversive parts about mercy, etc. The war against
Baptists was one of a number of wars they were fighting to wipe out all
dissenting denominations.
When you say "fundamentalist" you invite a lot of argument about what that
really means, but I think it would be fair to say that Atwood thinks
_some_ self-described fundamentalists, and especially the politically
prominent ones like Pat Robertson, are Christian in name only -- and that
a repressive theocracy is by definition hypocritical. Similarly, there
are plenty of Muslims who say the policies of the theocracy in Afghanistan
are contrary to the Qur'an.
--
Eli Bishop / www.concentric.net/~Elib
"I been tryin' to put a chicken in the window,
to chase away the wolf from the door" - John Prine
Ailsa Murphy
-Ailsa
--
But to explicitly advocate cultural relativism ailsa....@tfn.com
on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to Ailsa N.T. Murphy
implicitly assume that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any
absolute values, however, cultural relativism is false. -Theodore Schick
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
PMccutc103
>>Kind of like Governor Body, now that I think of it.
>
>Pete, you can't make fun of our governor without having sat through the whole
>
>sad sorry spectacle which was the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial campaign.
>Grassroots level people in both the DFL and IR parties are asking "How did we
>
>end up with such a smarmy twerp as our candidate?" Let's just say that the
>rational, polite, well reasoned candidate was the one who wore a feather boa
>as a pro wrestler.
>
>[social conservatives and race]
>> But I honestly don't think that race is really
>>that much of a factor in the SoCon agenda. But maybe that's wishful
>thinking
>>on my part.
>>
>I'd agree. There are, after all, social conservatives of all skin colors,
>and
>they agree on the vast majority of issues, AFAIK. The big factor on the
>agenda seems to be sex, with abortion as the lightning rod, and the teaching
>of evolution apparently as a side cause.
>
Well, I could look it up on dejanews, but I thought I said that Gov. Ventura
was sort of a watered-down libertarian. Since I have rather pronounced
libertarian tendancies myself, I cannot see how this was making fun of him.
Well, I did call him Gov. Body, but that's hardly too mean.
Frankly, had I been a citizen of Minnesota, I probably would have voted for the
Body. I certainly would have voted for him ahead of either of the two
candidates in our Gubernatorial election. If nothing else, he's actually held
down a real job, which puts him ahead of any number of politicos.
--
Pete McCutchen
Nancy Lebovitz
J. Brad Hicks <in...@us-shamanics.com> wrote:
>
>What's more, her specific scenario seems to assume that the spy apparatus
>in this country can be persuaded to accept and even embrace an
>isolationist policy long enough to align themselves with the SocCons in a
>coup. And =that=, I'm afraid, is enough of a stretch that I accepted it
>only under my "suspension of disbelief" filter.
>
start to push back against the new regime. A lot of Americans are armed.
A lot of Americans are politically active. Would it really be that
easy to disenfranchise half the population?
Kent Coyle
On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, daniel patrick duffy wrote:
> Lynn Calvin wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 07:23:33 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >John Boston wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <368E92...@leading.net>, rang...@leading.net says...
> > >> >
> > >> >[snip]
> > >> >
> > >> >I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
> > >> >feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
> > >> >Jones like rabid dogs.
> > >>
> > >> I guess I slept through that. Would you mind naming a few
> > >> NOW feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" and who
> > >> attacked Paula Jones like rabid dogs?
> > >
> > >Given that NOW lobbied hard against Clarence Thomas & co., & has maintained at
> > >best an uneasy silence on the subject of Bill Clinton, I'd suggest that it
> > >would be rather disingenuous to claim the two subsets of NOW's membership did
> > >not overlap. It would also be rather naive to expect anyone to admit belonging
> > >to both.
> >
> > Let us stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that both women
> > are telling the truth. I still believe there is a difference between
> > repeated incidents persisting after an announcement that they are
> > unwelcome over a period of years, and a single incident.
> >
> > This sets aside any negative career impact either woman may have
> > experienced.
> > Lynn Calvin
> > lca...@interaccess.com
>
> You are describing a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
> It's ammusing to watch NOW's mental back flips as they "stand by their
> man". A Republican prez would have been crucified by the feminists for
> doing the same thing.
>
> : Sorta like that award that MADD gave Ted Kennedy...klc
David Owen-Cruise
>owen...@umn.edu (David Owen-Cruise) wrote:
>>Pete, you can't make fun of our governor without having sat through the whole
>Well, I could look it up on dejanews, but I thought I said that Gov. Ventura
>was sort of a watered-down libertarian. Since I have rather pronounced
>libertarian tendancies myself, I cannot see how this was making fun of him.
For a major party official, I wouldn't describe his libertarianism as watered
down. He's explicitly recommending less regulation and less government.
>Well, I did call him Gov. Body, but that's hardly too mean.
>
Did I say you were being mean? No, I said you were making fun of him.
>Frankly, had I been a citizen of Minnesota, I probably would have voted for the
>Body. I certainly would have voted for him ahead of either of the two
>candidates in our Gubernatorial election. If nothing else, he's actually held
>down a real job, which puts him ahead of any number of politicos.
His Republican opponent reportedly worked as a roadie for Bachman-Turner
Overdrive for a couple of months in the 70's.
Ventura actually lost his job because he ran for Gov. The courts ruled that
the radio station on which he had a show would have to provide equal time for
his opponents if he kept broadcasting. After the conventions, he went off the
air.
J. Brad Hicks
Lebovitz) wrote:
=That= point, actually, is handled rather nicely in the book. There's a
long chapter where the narrator is trying, since she has time on her hand
and is bored, to decide when everything actually =started=. It's presented
as a "boiling a frog" problem: there were always plenty of reasons to
assume that things weren't going to get worse, and that the infringements
were temporary emergency measures. By the time it was obvious, there were
too few people with the resources to overthrow the massed weight of the
CIA, the FBI, the border patrol, and the army. If you haven't read that
book, when you get to that chapter, ask yourself at what point you would
have done something, and what you would have done?
There ARE people who were never conquered by the new regime; there's a
mention of "Baptist rebels" holed up in the Appalachians, still fighting
hard. And don't forget, in the last chapter of the book we find out that
the repressive regime lasted only about one generation; the book is a
narrative/diary that was found in a remote mountain cabin, many
generations later.
Gareth Wilson
>
> Hollywood has never shown any knowledge of Christianity. The one piece of
> Christian theology that seems to be firmly ensconced in every L.A.
> screenwriter's brain is that nuns can fly.
Well, not all nuns, otherwise "The Sound of Music" would have been more
interesting...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
e-mail gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
"A cesspool of smoking, cursing, and poor vocabulary"
-Jimmy Bakker on prison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PMccutc103
>PMccutc103 wrote:
>>
>> It's also a bit of an exaggeration of the actual SoCon position, but I
>suppose
>> that's acceptable for the sort of polemic that _The Handmaid's Tail_ is
>> supposed to be. I mean, I don't really think that even Pat Robertson would
>> supoort that sort of society in his heart of hearts, and I think that goes
>> double for the average SoCon voter.
>
>I'll admit now I only saw the movie of "Handmaid's Tale". But there
>seemed to be something screwy about the religion that ran the theocracy.
>You'd assume it was fundamentalist Christianity, but they never
>mentioned Christ, never featured a cross on any of their paraphenalia,
>actually said that the _Old_ Testament was their only moral compass, and
>there was even mention of fighting a guerilla war against Baptists (so
>Pat Robertson probably _wouldn't_ like that society). Is this just a
>weird distortion of the book, or weren't they Christians at all?
I honestly have to admit that it's been forever since I read the book, and I
honestly don't recall if there were specific references to the theology of the
theocrats in the book. It was my recollection that they were supposed to be
fundies of a sort, and they obviously lifted the "Handmaid" thing from the Old
Testament, but beyond that I don't recall. (I tried to check, but the book was
not on the shelf in its appointed spot.)
As to the movie, perhaps one reason that they refrained from having Christian
symbols was to avoid giving offense. I recall the mention of the war against
the Babtists, which struck me as odd. Btw, there was also mention of the fate
of the "Children of Ham," so I guess that the theocrats of the Handmaids Tail
(movie version) had retrograde views on race as well.
--
Pete McCutchen
Gareth Wilson
>
> You're not far off; the point was that in the opinion of Atwood (and many
> Christians -- I don't know if she is one), far-right politics are not
> compatible with the teachings of Jesus. Therefore the Gilead crowd
> soft-pedaled the New Testament and kept the Bible locked away in case
> anyone might read the subversive parts about mercy, etc. The war against
> Baptists was one of a number of wars they were fighting to wipe out all
> dissenting denominations.
Thanks for the info. The movie really did make the religion seem like
Juadism or even the Masons!
Joy Haftel
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
>Gareth Wilson <gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>>I'll admit now I only saw the movie of "Handmaid's Tale". But there
>>seemed to be something screwy about the religion that ran the theocracy.
>>You'd assume it was fundamentalist Christianity, but they never
>>mentioned Christ, never featured a cross on any of their paraphenalia,
>>actually said that the _Old_ Testament was their only moral compass, and
>>there was even mention of fighting a guerilla war against Baptists (so
>>Pat Robertson probably _wouldn't_ like that society). Is this just a
>>weird distortion of the book, or weren't they Christians at all?
>I honestly have to admit that it's been forever since I read the book, and I
>honestly don't recall if there were specific references to the theology of the
>theocrats in the book. It was my recollection that they were supposed to be
>fundies of a sort, and they obviously lifted the "Handmaid" thing from the Old
>Testament, but beyond that I don't recall. (I tried to check, but the book was
>not on the shelf in its appointed spot.)
There were certain trappings of the worst aspects of fundamentalist
Christianity in the Gilead regime, but the meat just wasn't there. If
anything, the Gilead regime resembles something called Christian
Reconstructionism, a movement which many fundamentalists even find scary.
Reconstructionists basically believe it is up to them to establish God's
Kingdom on Earth, and to institute Old Testament law--even the harshest,
most draconian punishments--as the law of the land. For more info on this
group, see http://www.reasonmag.com/9811/col.olson.html . Chilling stuff.
>As to the movie, perhaps one reason that they refrained from having Christian
>symbols was to avoid giving offense. I recall the mention of the war against
>the Babtists, which struck me as odd.
Not if you know much about traditional Baptist theology. Baptists have
always believed in individual freedom and conscience, the priesthood of
the believer, and a personal (as opposed to imposed) relationship of the
individual to God. Theocracy doesn't fit into that world-view at all.
That's not to say that some Baptists aren't authoritarian. American
fundamentalist Christianity varies a lot, and Reconstructionists make a
lot of the Christian Right look reasoned and moderate by comparison.
Joe
Hicks) wrote:
>In article <77lom6$h...@netaxs.com>, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy
>Lebovitz) wrote:
>
>>In article <info-10019...@ip34.tallahassee3.fl.pub-ip.psi.net>,
>>J. Brad Hicks <in...@us-shamanics.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>What's more, her specific scenario seems to assume that the spy apparatus
snip
>There ARE people who were never conquered by the new regime; there's a
>mention of "Baptist rebels" holed up in the Appalachians, still fighting
>hard. And don't forget, in the last chapter of the book we find out that
>the repressive regime lasted only about one generation; the book is a
>narrative/diary that was found in a remote mountain cabin, many
>generations later.
>
Well that bit makes sense, heavy duty repression rarely last beyond
the commited repressors that start it in the first place.
Joe
wrote:
>In article <info-10019...@ip34.tallahassee3.fl.pub-ip.psi.net>,
>J. Brad Hicks <in...@us-shamanics.com> wrote:
>>
>>What's more, her specific scenario seems to assume that the spy apparatus
>>in this country can be persuaded to accept and even embrace an
>>isolationist policy long enough to align themselves with the SocCons in a
>>coup. And =that=, I'm afraid, is enough of a stretch that I accepted it
>>only under my "suspension of disbelief" filter.
>>
>Also, I have a problem with the idea that neither women nor men even
>start to push back against the new regime. A lot of Americans are armed.
>A lot of Americans are politically active. Would it really be that
>easy to disenfranchise half the population?
>
Well I never read the book just saw the movie. The above points were
what struck me very forcefully. I do not believe that even the level
of armament poscessed by the American citizenry would save them from a
repressive military, given the type of stuff a military can deploy. IF
the Military maintain cohesion. OK so they might have to shoot damn
near everyone in the country. However, terror works if emplyed with
sufficient ruthlessness.
However, the US military is (at least in the examples I have run
across) fairly fulll of people that believe in the consitiution and
all that flows from it. I find it impossible to concieve of a
situation where the military would support en mass a coup that
overthrew the constitution.
So the military would fracture and so presumably would the national
guard.
I reckon the civil war that would ensue would be something else again
it their support was a strong as implied in the film. If they were
just a clique then they would not last long enough to see a civil war
arise.
No major social change would have to occur in the US before the
scenario in the Handmaids Tale could happen IMHO.
Cambias
pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) wrote:
> Gareth Wilson <gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> As to the movie, perhaps one reason that they refrained from having Christian
> symbols was to avoid giving offense. I recall the mention of the war against
> the Babtists, which struck me as odd. Btw, there was also mention of the fate
> of the "Children of Ham," so I guess that the theocrats of the Handmaids Tail
> (movie version) had retrograde views on race as well.
Or maybe they were strict about keeping Kosher.
Cambias
Kent Coyle
On 6 Jan 1999, Aaron P. Brezenski wrote:
> In article <36935928...@mediaone.net>,
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >> Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> >> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
:> >> Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
> >In his last few years, younger Arizona Republicans suspected him of
> >dangerous liberal tendencies, because he supported women's
> >reproductive rights and said, concerning who could or couldn't serve
> >in the US military, "You don't need to be straight; you just need to
> >shoot straight." "Old 'nuke 'em' Goldwater was, on many issues,
> >_considerably_ to the left of the leadership of the present-day
> >Republican Party, and assessing his spot on the political spectrum by
> >where he was in relation to Lyndon Johnson thirty-five years ago can
> >be somewhat misleading.
>
> Especially if you're foolish enough to think politics is so one-dimensional
> that it can be adequately described with words like "left", "right", or even
> "moderate".
>
> Aaron Brezenski
> "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."
>
> Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati
>
>
: I knew (worked with) Senator William Fulbright's secretary, and she
*swore* that Goldwater was a "Jeffersonian Democrat"...klc