Clinton's Foreign Policy
Simon E. Booth
In light of the current situation in the Middle East, we must ask questions
about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
Will he get tough with Saddam Hussien, or will he suffer from.....
IRAQ-NOPHOBIA!!!
:-)
Simon
(what happens if the Secret Serivce drug sniffer dogs find something in the
President's luggage on Air Force One?)
Howard Berkey
>
>(what happens if the Secret Serivce drug sniffer dogs find something in the
>President's luggage on Air Force One?)
>
What, you mean like Halcyon?
-H-
(Or maybe those pills that were animating Ronnie Ray-gun's brain dead
corpse all those years)
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey how...@netcom.com
You will not find excess in the jungle
... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ... ... .. ...
Simon E. Booth
>In article <1993Jan20.0...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>(what happens if the Secret Serivce drug sniffer dogs find something in the
>>President's luggage on Air Force One?)
>>
>
>What, you mean like Halcyon?
No, the stuff he says he didn't inhale...
He could just say it was catnip for Socks.
I can see it now- the cat is acting really funny, and Chelsea is really
upset "Daddy, Socks got in your stash again.."
"Well, Chelsea, did he inhale?"
Simon
(Today is the day we sing 'Inhale to the Chief- 57 minutes from the time of
this posting!)
Daniel L'Hommedieu
>about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy? Excuse me,
wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!? And his WIFE is going to do it?
Can anyone verify this?
Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Department, NCSU / ea...@catt.ncsu.edu
"Ich bin ein Adler"
"It's time for Americans to stop expecting something for nothing." -- Pres.
Bill Clinton in his inaugural speech, 20 January 1993. "Yeah right," I say.
Tom Perigrin
>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!? And his WIFE is going to do it?
Yup. They tried to find a good astrologer, but even astrologers can see
how big a mess 12 years of borrow and spend rebooblicans have left us in.
kellmeyer steven l
>IRAQ-NOPHOBIA!!!
>:-)
>Simon
Mr. Bill claims its catnip and blames Chelsea for putting it there.
Then he issues an executive order requiring all drug sniffer dogs to
stop inhaling.
--
Steve Kellmeyer
kell...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Elizabeth G. Levy
>
>PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy? Excuse me,
>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!? And his WIFE is going to do it?
>
>Can anyone verify this?
Similarly, I heard that Snapple supports Operation Rescue....
--
<Phone rings> "Hello?... He did what?... Bomb 'em.... I'm still
President."
-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In light of the current situation in the Middle East, we must ask questions
>>about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
>
> I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
> PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy? Excuse me,
> wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!? And his WIFE is going to do it?
>
Heard it on Rush?
Also, I seem to recall a certain president's wife and her astrologer running
policy from the White House? Can anyone verify this?
-Garrett
Joseph Michael Corey
>In article <eagle.7...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> ea...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>>
>>I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
>>PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy? Excuse me,
>>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!? And his WIFE is going to do it?
>>
>>Can anyone verify this?
>Similarly, I heard that Snapple supports Operation Rescue....
How in the hell is this similar to Snapple supporting Operation Rescue.
Snapple is a PRIVATE corporation that can do whatever it wants with
ITS money. Bill Clinton was elected to office saying that he,
the President, would spend lots of HIS time on foreign policy...
Please explain further if you can....
>--
><Phone rings> "Hello?... He did what?... Bomb 'em.... I'm still
>President."
> -- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
--
_________________________________________________
JOSEPH M. COREY
Neuroscience Program and Medical Scholars Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Don Wiggins
[regarding a what-if scenario in which drug dogs find a stash in the
White House.]
>Mr. Bill claims its catnip and blames Chelsea for putting it there.
>Then he issues an executive order requiring all drug sniffer dogs to
>stop inhaling.
No, no, no! He appoints a drug dog czar who will establish a committee
to review the the whole sniffing/inhaling issue and make recommendations at
an open forum on MTV. The resulting legislation will be used as the plot
line in an upcoming episode of Designing Women.
|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American | Success is getting what you want. |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wig...@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu | -- Brother Dave Gardner |
|===========================================================================|
Elizabeth G. Levy
>eg...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <eagle.7...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> ea...@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>>>
>>>I heard today that Pres. Clinton (then Pres-elect Clinton) said in
>>>PUBLIC that his wife would be in charge of Domestic Policy? Excuse me,
>>>wasn't this what he got ELECTED for?!? And his WIFE is going to do it?
>>>
>>>Can anyone verify this?
>
>>Similarly, I heard that Snapple supports Operation Rescue....
>
>How in the hell is this similar to Snapple supporting Operation Rescue.
>Snapple is a PRIVATE corporation that can do whatever it wants with
>ITS money. Bill Clinton was elected to office saying that he,
>the President, would spend lots of HIS time on foreign policy...
>
>Please explain further if you can....
I, in my cheerful giddyness, was refering to the (false) rumor and
hearsay regarding Snapple supporting of OR. Mr. L'Hommedieu began his
posting with the UL-flag, "I heard today...." and so naturally (for
me) my mind wandered to the most recent urban legend to make it to a
front page of the New York Times. It was not a comment about private
disbursement of funds to political groups, but an oblique jab at
someone accepting hearsay as gospel.
Simon E. Booth
>In article <C16ID...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kell...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>(kellmeyer steven l) wrote:
>>
>> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>
>> >In light of the current situation in the Middle East, we must ask questions
>> >about Pres. (he is President by now) Clinton's foreign policy.
>>
>> >Will he get tough with Saddam Hussien, or will he suffer from.....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >IRAQ-NOPHOBIA!!!
>>
>
>needs to worry about the global politcal situation when we can shed tears
>over Michael Bolton and gospel singers.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that about the inauguration!
This inauguration looked more like a carnival than the offical swearing in
of a President. Like I said in a previous message, even Carter stuck with
the more traditional inaugural events.
The really funny part was that it seemed as if some people present at these
events were acting as if it was some religious expericence, like Clinton
is some sort of miracle worker.
Simon
Ted Frank
>There's a difference between power and influence. Power is the
>ability to make and implement decisions; influence is the ability to
>get someone else to make and implement decisions. (Note that
>influence-peddling, ie lobbying, is not against the law while
>power-peddling, ie accepting bribes, is.) Most first ladies have had
>influence but none have had power.
Edith Wilson?
>As I recall, Nancy's influence was
>limited to personnel decisions, and did not extend to health care
>policy.
I see no qualitative difference. Other than that the former was behind
the scenes, while the latter is open.
>Hillary, on the other hand, un-elected, un-appointed, and
>un-accountable to the American people is being offered power.
Well, so was John Sununu. I much prefer Hillary to him.
At any rate, Congress has to approve anything Hillary's committee
suggests.
Besides, as another poster pointed out, it's not a particular
surprise to voters that Hillary is married to Bill and that she
wasn't going to spend her time in the White House ghostwriting
a book for Socks.
>If Bill
>wants her to have a position, let him appoint her and let the Senate
>confirm her. Just because she raised her hand during Bill's taking the
>Oath of Office doesn't mean she has a legitimate role in policy-making.
Did she raise her hand?
Why is Bill putting Hillary in charge of a policy-suggesting committee
worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
positions? Besides the fact that she's a woman?
--
ted frank | th...@ellis.uchicago.edu
standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Sean Pfeiffer
Kennedy administration which prohibited immediate family members of the
President from doing this (RFK as Attorney General under JFK was the
basis for this).
Ted Frank
It's not clear whether such a law was constitutional. The misc.legal
debate consensus was "probably not," if I recall correctly, but it's
doubtful any president would waste time challenging it.
Michal Leah Peri
>perhaps the real reason you
>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
No. It's because she's *competent*.
--
-- Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Ted Frank
>In article <C1J5v...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan27....@lclark.edu> to...@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis) writes:
>>>>Why is Bill putting Hillary in charge of a policy-suggesting committee
>>>>worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
>>>>positions?
>>
>> Presumably we elect them because we expect they will make wise
>> apointments.
>
>Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
>Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything.
What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
If Jimmy Carter had hired Billy Carter, the outrage would have been
strong enough that he would have quickly backed down. It wouldn't
have even happened in the first place. I mean, look at all the crap
Clinton's getting when he hired someone smarter than him for an unpaid
position to come up with a health care plan, just because he happened
to be married to her.
>> Hillary Clinton is a smart, energetic person
>> with a reputation for building consensus, cutting through BS
>> and getting things done. Sounds like just what that position
>> requires. Ultimately any recommendations her commission
>> makes have to be approved by Congress.
>
>The president can do quite a few things without Congressional approval.
But not regarding health care.
>And Hillory has already been appointed to take care of the health-care
>situation. This post, I imagine, requires approval.
It's an advisory committee, from what I understand. It no more needs
approval than his hiring of his friend Stephanapoulos.
>> I can think of a lot better things to criticize Clinton
>> over recently than appointing his wife to a commision to
>> study health care reform.
>
>As I said, nepotism is always suspicious, even when otherwise appropriate.
Conceding that point, what's suspicious in this particular case?
koppenhoefer kyle cramm
>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they
won't get fired! The position Mrs. Clinton is taking won't be around
long enough for this to become a concern, but I _would_ strongly object
to more long-term appointments ( greater than 100 days ).
Rich Payne
>In article <1993Jan27....@lclark.edu> to...@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis) writes:
>>>worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
>>>positions?
>
> Presumably we elect them because we expect they will make wise
> apointments.
Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything.
> Hillary Clinton is a smart, energetic person
> with a reputation for building consensus, cutting through BS
> and getting things done. Sounds like just what that position
> requires. Ultimately any recommendations her commission
> makes have to be approved by Congress.
The president can do quite a few things without Congressional approval.
And Hillory has already been appointed to take care of the health-care
situation. This post, I imagine, requires approval.
> I can think of a lot better things to criticize Clinton
> over recently than appointing his wife to a commision to
> study health care reform.
As I said, nepotism is always suspicious, even when otherwise appropriate.
>---peter
>
Rich
Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,
>
>>Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
>>Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything.
>
> as Attorney General. I know it's just a movie, but seeing _Hoffa_
> (GREAT movie) reminded me of just what an asshole Bobby was (as was
> his equally anti-labor, red-baiting brother John F.). And AG is a
> paid position even, where Hillary's is not...
>
> Methink Rich doth prostest too much... perhaps his real objection is
> that Ms. Clinton is a *female* relative of Mr. C.
Robert Kennedy's appointment was the event that motivated the current
anti-nepotism law in the first place... perhaps the real reason you
are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
SEH
Anthony Davis
she's not just a woman... she's a WIFE...
an even more defined role...
eek, eek...
how's she going to have time to work and host parties?
how will she take care of Chelsea? and Socks?
give people a little credit folks...
the White House staff has many competent hosts, cat-feeders, and lunch-makers...
to usurp their positions would be unwise...
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer... let her do her job...]
we should all raise our hands... we should all suggest policy...
and those of us who are good at it, like Hillary Clinton, should be heeded...
send me 20 bucks,
tonyd
Elizabeth G. Levy
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>
> Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they
>won't get fired!
Any more than a close friend. Are you suddenly going to cut off a
source of informal advice? If, say, Clinton has to fire McLeod (the
Chief of Staff. I may have the name wrong), is he going to stop
calling him to get his opinion?
In a sense, it's better to have your advisors in the open. You know
where they stand (as opposed to, say, Nancy Reagan's use of
astrologers).
--
Who's "the loneliest monk?"
Lulu of the lotus-eaters
.....[discussion of Hillary Clinton's health-care committee position]...
>Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
>Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything.
Does anybody here remember hearing about Robert Kennedy's appointment
as Attorney General. I know it's just a movie, but seeing _Hoffa_
(GREAT movie) reminded me of just what an asshole Bobby was (as was
his equally anti-labor, red-baiting brother John F.). And AG is a
paid position even, where Hillary's is not...
Methink Rich doth prostest too much... perhaps his real objection is
that Ms. Clinton is a *female* relative of Mr. C.
--
_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Gordon Fitch
to be debated on the merits, or a person, or even a subject.
"Hillary Clinton" is a trial balloon being floated by pro-
fessional social reactionaries to see if it will get any
action. They're mostly flogging homophobia these days,
having lost badly on the abortion thing, but they're always
on the lookout for new bait to attract their prey.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Angelia Sparrow
I don't object to Frau Clinton being put in charge
because she the Prez 's wife. I object because
she's a lawyer. She's upper middle class, covered
by health insurance and probably has never had
anything more traumatic than braces or
appendectomy done.
She doesn't know what it is to make less than $15000
a year, and not be insurable because you are chronically
ill. The sick people can't get iunsurance. I can't, because of
prior history. My last ear infection bankrupted us. My insurance
would run at least 150 a month and not cover my ears or anything
else wrong.
She can't relate to that. She hasn't the foggiest notion
what it's like to eat macaroni for a week so the dr. can be paid.
Besides which, malpractice suits are in her best interests.
If she takes one, and the client gets 2 million, she
could get a hefty chunk of it. It's like telling the wolf
to guard the hen house.
But, being she is a woman, perhaps her sensitive, compassionate side
will come out. (If she has one.)
Just m,y thoughts. Surely there'
s someone more qualified?
Angel
ROH JOHN J
from her job. President Clinton(can YOU say 'President Clinton'?) isn't
dumb enough to let Hillary continue if she screws up. So, why don't you
relax. Hey, who knows, maybe she might even do a good job :)
Peter Nelson
>In article <1k83bj...@gap.caltech.edu> pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>hill...@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>>
>>>perhaps the real reason you
>>>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>>
>>No. It's because she's *competent*.
>
>affairs or health care reform? Can you provide the basis for your
>opinion?
Beyond a certain level "competence" is no longer defined
in terms of technical knowledge of a field, but rather
the ability to organize, "manage", take charge of a sit-
uation and get things done. That's why a computer company
might, for instance, choose a former executive from a
soft-drink company for their CEO, or a retiring general
or admiral might be asked to serve on the board of some
troubled corporation.
Smart people who are good at things tend to be good at
lots of things. Keep in mind that she pushed through a
massive education-reform package in Arkansas, again
without any particular background in education, and over
the objections of many entrenched special interests.
In Today's Wall Street Journal they said that when she
was done even her husband's Republican opponents were
strongly impressed.
She might screw up big time in this job - it's an
extremely tough assignment. But so might someone
with a medical or insurance background. But I don't
think her assignment would raise so many eyebrows if
she weren't the President's wife.
---peter
J. Morgan Morris
>Angel here.
Hello...
>She doesn't know what it is to make less than $15000
>a year, and not be insurable because you are chronically
>ill. The sick people can't get iunsurance. I can't, because of
>prior history. My last ear infection bankrupted us. My insurance
>would run at least 150 a month and not cover my ears or anything
>else wrong.
UMR is not that far away from Arkansas. Hillary is well aware of
the needs of the poor and uninsured, due to her prior work in
Arkansas.
>She can't relate to that. She hasn't the foggiest notion
>what it's like to eat macaroni for a week so the dr. can be paid.
Not directly; but she understands the needs. She worked very hard
to help those not usually helped in Arkansas when she headed up
educational reform efforts.
>Besides which, malpractice suits are in her best interests.
>If she takes one, and the client gets 2 million, she
>could get a hefty chunk of it. It's like telling the wolf
>to guard the hen house.
For many attorneys this is true. Hillary Clinton's primary interests
involve helping children. Wouldn't you want one of the nation's top
100 lawyers on your side?
>But, being she is a woman, perhaps her sensitive, compassionate side
>will come out. (If she has one.)
Yes, she does! (See the above discussion.)
>Just m,y thoughts. Surely there'
>s someone more qualified?
Perhaps, but I don't know who...
>Angel
What are you studying at UMR anyway? In a previous life, I graduated
from there in 1981 in CS.
Later,
Morgan
--
John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083
Internet: mat...@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246
Janice Kendall
>In article <1k83bj...@gap.caltech.edu> pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
>>>perhaps the real reason you
>>>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>>
>>No. It's because she's *competent*.
>
>affairs or health care reform? Can you provide the basis for your
>opinion?
>
On the news this morning, they were discussing this. They compared her
appointment to head up health care reform to Clinton appointing her to
head up educational reform in Arkansas.
She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
bring any bias to the task of health reform.
Her acknowledged competence (by her peers and educators, at the least) is in
bringing an openmindedness to the proceedings, the ability to comprehend and
analyze the issues on all sides of the equation, and to pull together a
consensus from widely divergent opinions.
>>
>> -- Michal
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
>
>
>Rich
>
>pay...@netcom.com
>
>
>
Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
Don't Panic! Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
Rich Payne
>In article <1993Jan28.0...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <C1J5v...@apollo.hp.com> nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan27....@lclark.edu> to...@lclark.edu (Anthony Davis) writes:
>>>>>Why is Bill putting Hillary in charge of a policy-suggesting committee
>>>>>worse than Ronnie appointing his cronies to important White House staff
>>>>>positions?
>>>
>>> Or anybody? Presidents have certain powers to appoint people.
>>> Presumably we elect them because we expect they will make wise
>>> apointments.
>>
>>Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
>>Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything.
>
>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>
>If Jimmy Carter had hired Billy Carter, the outrage would have been
>strong enough that he would have quickly backed down. It wouldn't
>have even happened in the first place.
Well gee, Clinton just hired (if you will, non-paid position) his wife,
and people are complaining. And you insist that the outrage is because
his wife in a woman. Which way is it?
If Clinton were gay and his <wife?> were a man, do you think that everyone
would be happy and do the dance of joy? I don't think so.
> I mean, look at all the crap
>Clinton's getting when he hired someone smarter than him for an unpaid
>position to come up with a health care plan, just because he happened
>to be married to her.
You got it backwards, the issue, like that of Billy Carter, -is- that
they are related.
>>> Hillary Clinton is a smart, energetic person
>>> with a reputation for building consensus, cutting through BS
>>> and getting things done. Sounds like just what that position
>>> requires. Ultimately any recommendations her commission
>>> makes have to be approved by Congress.
>>
>>The president can do quite a few things without Congressional approval.
>
>But not regarding health care.
I do not recall that it is constitutionally required that the houses
vote on health-care issues. But as a part of the budget, I agree.
>>And Hillory has already been appointed to take care of the health-care
>>situation. This post, I imagine, requires approval.
>
>It's an advisory committee, from what I understand. It no more needs
>approval than his hiring of his friend Stephanapoulos.
>
>>> I can think of a lot better things to criticize Clinton
>>> over recently than appointing his wife to a commision to
>>> study health care reform.
>>
>>As I said, nepotism is always suspicious, even when otherwise appropriate.
>
>Conceding that point, what's suspicious in this particular case?
Huh? You concede the point, then question the assumptions you just conceded?
>--
>ted frank | th...@ellis.uchicago.edu
>standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Rich
Rich Payne
>In article <1993Jan28.0...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>.....[discussion of Hillary Clinton's health-care committee position]...
>
>>Granted, but there is still the matter of nepotism. Imagine if President
>>Carter had hired Billy Carter, for anything.
>
>Does anybody here remember hearing about Robert Kennedy's appointment
>as Attorney General. I know it's just a movie, but seeing _Hoffa_
>(GREAT movie) reminded me of just what an asshole Bobby was (as was
>his equally anti-labor, red-baiting brother John F.). And AG is a
>paid position even, where Hillary's is not...
>
>Methink Rich doth prostest too much... perhaps his real objection is
>that Ms. Clinton is a *female* relative of Mr. C.
I mention nepotism, and get told not only that I "prostest too much",
but what my -real- (tm) objection is.
Your first objection is silly, or can you show "too much" objection.
The second is essentially calling me a liar, so I must ask you to
provide evidence to substantiate your presumption. Or an apology.
>--
> _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
> _/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
> _/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Rich
Rich Payne
>
>>perhaps the real reason you
>>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>
>No. It's because she's *competent*.
Because she's a woman? What competence has she demonstrated in national
affairs or health care reform? Can you provide the basis for your
opinion?
>
> -- Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Rich
Rich Payne
>In article <C1JuM...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kk...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>
>>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>>
>> Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they
>>won't get fired!
>
>Any more than a close friend. Are you suddenly going to cut off a
>source of informal advice? If, say, Clinton has to fire McLeod (the
>Chief of Staff. I may have the name wrong), is he going to stop
>calling him to get his opinion?
Who knows, but clearly he has that option. I suspect that if he had
cause to fire the Chief of Staff, it might be wise to exercise that option.
>In a sense, it's better to have your advisors in the open. You know
>where they stand (as opposed to, say, Nancy Reagan's use of
>astrologers).
>
>--
> Who's "the loneliest monk?"
Rich
Ted Frank
>as Attorney General. I know it's just a movie, but seeing _Hoffa_
>(GREAT movie) reminded me of just what an asshole Bobby was (as was
>his equally anti-labor, red-baiting brother John F.).
One of the problems with recent Hollywood biopics like JFK, Malcolm X,
Hoffa, Chaplin, etc., is that people begin to think that they have more
than a passing resemblance to reality.
"Hoffa" is no more an accurate representation of Hoffa than Sylvester
Stallone's "F.I.S.T."
EMIL CHUCK
.kk...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
.>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
.>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
.>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
.>
.> Well, when the person is your wife, the difference is that they
.>won't get fired! The position Mrs. Clinton is taking won't be around
.>long enough for this to become a concern, but I _would_ strongly object
.>to more long-term appointments ( greater than 100 days ).
.>
. Well, if Hillary is doing a bad job then she WILL be removed
.from her job. President Clinton(can YOU say 'President Clinton'?) isn't
.dumb enough to let Hillary continue if she screws up. So, why don't you
.relax. Hey, who knows, maybe she might even do a good job :)
The question I have is what type of plans will arise from such a group.
It is essentially Hillary's plan to choose, not only because she's the
chair of the group, but also she can throw in her own ideas without much
opposition or debate (as I see it). I doubt that if she does a bad job
that we'll know about it until the consequences of the program are
revealed down the road... when I become licensed... oh, hell.
[Somewhat seriously, I am now considering applying to law school and not
going to medical school as I had originally intended earlier this year.
It's not only the money and time committment, but also the state of the
health care profession after this time committment that now is scaring
me off. (I also had some desire to be a teacher until I saw how teachers
were being treated and the money they earned and decided it wasn't worth
it for me.)]
--
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@acpub.duke.edu BSE in BME in 1993
"You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you
know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you."
- Bill Clinton, East Lansing MI debate, Mon Oct 19 1992
Don Beaver
>In article <1993Jan28.1...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1k83bj...@gap.caltech.edu> pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>hill...@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>>>
>>>>perhaps the real reason you
>>>>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>>>
>>>No. It's because she's *competent*.
>>
>>Because she's a woman? What competence has she demonstrated in national
>>affairs or health care reform? Can you provide the basis for your
>>opinion?
[...]
> She might screw up big time in this job - it's an
> extremely tough assignment. But so might someone
> with a medical or insurance background. But I don't
> think her assignment would raise so many eyebrows if
> she weren't the President's wife.
Yes, but whether or not one agrees with her appointment,
your last sentence raises the important question:
*Would* she have been appointed if she weren't the president's wife?
Don
--
bea...@cs.psu.edu Opinions from the PC-challenged
Judy McMillin
Did anyone ever consider that maybe nobody
want's the job of Health Czar? Maybe Hillary
took the job rather than embarass the administration
by exposing the hopelessness of the health care
problem. Isn't that what wives are for? (doing
the dirty work?)
Judy
Judy McMillin
>Angel here.
>
>I don't object to Frau Clinton being put in charge
>because she the Prez 's wife. I object because
>she's a lawyer. She's upper middle class, covered
>by health insurance and probably has never had
>anything more traumatic than braces or
>appendectomy done.
>
>She doesn't know what it is to make less than $15000
>a year, and not be insurable because you are chronically
>ill. The sick people can't get iunsurance. I can't, because of
>prior history. My last ear infection bankrupted us. My insurance
>would run at least 150 a month and not cover my ears or anything
>else wrong.
>
a child to care for, and makes less than $15,000. Maybe
SHE should be the Health Czar! She really knows about
all those problems you describe.
Only one problem, though. If she were smart and savvy
enough to solve the health care problems in this country,
she would not have them herself; therefore, she wouldn't
qualify for the job. Oh, dillema!
Judy
John Townsend
|> Well, if Hillary is doing a bad job then she WILL be removed
|> from her job. President Clinton(can YOU say 'President Clinton'?) isn't
|> dumb enough to let Hillary continue if she screws up. So, why don't you
|> relax. Hey, who knows, maybe she might even do a good job :)
Not dumb enough? Given any thought to how far over her knee he might be after
his philandering with Miss Flowers was exposed, for example? Try to imagine
what would happen to him if she sued for divorce. If you thought it was bad
for Charles and Di...
--
// John Townsend "I thought I was Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central wrong once, but jo...@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr. I was mistaken." ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH 45342 8-} (513) 865-7250
Don Beaver
Explicitly *avoiding* the question of whether Hillary's appointment is
right or wrong, I thought I'd remind you of Zoe Baird.
Ted Frank
>In article <1993Jan28....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>>
>>If Jimmy Carter had hired Billy Carter, the outrage would have been
>>have even happened in the first place.
>
>Well gee, Clinton just hired (if you will, non-paid position) his wife,
>and people are complaining. And you insist that the outrage is because
>his wife in a woman. Which way is it?
Please show me where I say people are complaining that his wife is a
woman.
>> I mean, look at all the crap
>>Clinton's getting when he hired someone smarter than him for an unpaid
>>position to come up with a health care plan, just because he happened
>>to be married to her.
>
>You got it backwards, the issue, like that of Billy Carter, -is- that
>they are related.
Duh. I'm asking why it matters, or is any different than Bush hiring his
best friend to important positions on his staff.
>>>The president can do quite a few things without Congressional approval.
>>
>>But not regarding health care.
>
>I do not recall that it is constitutionally required that the houses
>vote on health-care issues. But as a part of the budget, I agree.
Please tell me what action President Clinton can take regarding health
care that will not involve a bill being approved by Congress. Thank you.
Peter Nelson
>nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> She might screw up big time in this job - it's an
>> extremely tough assignment. But so might someone
>> with a medical or insurance background. But I don't
>> think her assignment would raise so many eyebrows if
>> she weren't the President's wife.
>
>
>Yes, but whether or not one agrees with her appointment,
>your last sentence raises the important question:
>
> *Would* she have been appointed if she weren't the president's wife?
I imagine not, but remember, it has been widely suggested
that if some other Democrat had won the White House, Hillary
Clinton may have been in line for a Cabinet appointment. So
it cuts both ways.
---peter
Janice Kendall
The answer is YES. And furthermore, I hear that she would have been
on a very short list for a cabinet position if she had not been the
President's wife.
John Townsend
|> On the news this morning, they were discussing this. They compared her
|> appointment to head up health care reform to Clinton appointing her to
|> head up educational reform in Arkansas.
|>
|> She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
|> She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
|> bring any bias to the task of health reform.
|>
|> Her acknowledged competence (by her peers and educators, at the least) is in
|> bringing an openmindedness to the proceedings, the ability to comprehend and
|> analyze the issues on all sides of the equation, and to pull together a
|> consensus from widely divergent opinions.
This is rich. Hillary's main accomplishment for "educational reform" in
Arkansas was to forge a compromise in which the state sales tax was hiked up
by a full percentage point in exchange for skills testing for teachers. The
testing turned out to be a joke: teachers could only be asked to take the
exam under special circumstances, and if the score was unsatisfactory, they
had two years to try again. Meanwhile, Arkansas is STILL the worst state in
the nation for public education. I hope she doesn't try the same thing for
my health care.
Rich Payne
>In article <1993Jan28.1...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan28....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>>>
>>>If Jimmy Carter had hired Billy Carter, the outrage would have been
>>>strong enough that he would have quickly backed down. The hiring wouldn't
>>>have even happened in the first place.
>>
>>Well gee, Clinton just hired (if you will, non-paid position) his wife,
>>and people are complaining. And you insist that the outrage is because
>>his wife in a woman. Which way is it?
>
>Please show me where I say people are complaining that his wife is a
>woman.
Very funny. What do you say to the charge of nepotism then?
>>> I mean, look at all the crap
>>>Clinton's getting when he hired someone smarter than him for an unpaid
>>>position to come up with a health care plan, just because he happened
>>>to be married to her.
>>
>>You got it backwards, the issue, like that of Billy Carter, -is- that
>>they are related.
>
>Duh. I'm asking why it matters, or is any different than Bush hiring his
>best friend to important positions on his staff.
So then you seem to be saying that nepotism is not an issue, and does
not matter. Is this what you are saying?
>>>>The president can do quite a few things without Congressional approval.
>>>
>>>But not regarding health care.
>>
>>I do not recall that it is constitutionally required that the houses
>>vote on health-care issues. But as a part of the budget, I agree.
>
>Please tell me what action President Clinton can take regarding health
>care that will not involve a bill being approved by Congress. Thank you.
Was congressional approval required to forbid family planning clinics
which receive public funds from even -mentioning- abortion as an option?
Was congressional approval required to lift the ban?
There is quite a bit that can be done without congressional involvment.
>ted frank | th...@ellis.uchicago.edu
>standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Rich
Rich Payne
Since you put that in caps, I imagine it must be more than just your
opinion. Hows about letting us in on some of the details?
> And furthermore, I hear that she would have been
> on a very short list for a cabinet position if she had not been the
> President's wife.
Who's list? If Bush's list, why did he not hire her earlier? And which
cabinet position?
> Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
> Don't Panic! Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
Rich
mey...@alleg.edu
Leah Peri) writes:
> hill...@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7
Clark,50649,) writes:
>
> >perhaps the real reason you
> >are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>
> No. It's because she's *competent*.
> -- Michal
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
What I'm wondering is how someone on this committee is going to tell
President Clinton that his wife's ideas won't work.
Jon Meyer
mey...@alleg.edu
The problem is that the difference in complexity and size between Arkansas
and the entire country is enormous. If I remember correctly, Arkansas
ranked almost dead LAST in the country in education. If that makes
Hillary qualified, someone shoot me now.
Jon Meyer
Tom Perigrin
A lot of people think she isn't competent to do the job. A lot of
people fear that she wasn't the right choice for the job.
These people might be right, they might be wrong.
Most of them who are complaining the loudest are very vocal
detractors of Bill CLinton, and to some extent,would like to
see him fail even if that would be bnad for the country.
So here is my suggestion - be quiet for a while.
If Hillary fails, then you will have facts on your side.
If Hillary doesn't fail, then you won't look like a dolt
because you have been predicting the failure for so long.
You certainly don't expect Bill to fire Hillary because
a lot of Dan Quayle loving reactionary republicans from
the cornbelt don't like here, do you? So what good does
your bitching do?
Wait for a bit, and you'll either have ammunition to shoot with,
or you'll avoid having made a mistake in your predicitions
(remember the boob who said "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN
AND RE-ELECTED BUSH" early election morning. Bet he still feels
like a boob!)
Janice Kendall
My opinion shaped by the interviews of the political analysts
expounding on the subject of Hillary Rodham (sp?) Clinton.
I'm just enthusiastic - I've heard some of what has happened
to the educational system in Arkansas and how it has become a
model for other states. Her appointment to this commission
implies, to me, that some really creative, un-biased thinking
may produce something really beneficial for the people and the
state of the economy.
>
>> And furthermore, I hear that she would have been
>> on a very short list for a cabinet position if she had not been the
>> President's wife.
>
>Who's list? If Bush's list, why did he not hire her earlier? And which
>cabinet position?
>
Why would a Democrat be on a Republican's list of potential cabinet
members? The current President is a Democrat as is she.
>> Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>>
>> Don't Panic! Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
>
>
>Rich
>
>pay...@netcom.com
Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
"Creativity overcomes violence."
John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
Gordon Fitch
| >> She might screw up big time in this job - it's an
| >> extremely tough assignment. But so might someone
| >> with a medical or insurance background. But I don't
| >> think her assignment would raise so many eyebrows if
| >> she weren't the President's wife.
bea...@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
| >Yes, but whether or not one agrees with her appointment,
| >your last sentence raises the important question:
| >
| > *Would* she have been appointed if she weren't the president's wife?
pn:
| I imagine not, but remember, it has been widely suggested
| that if some other Democrat had won the White House, Hillary
| Clinton may have been in line for a Cabinet appointment. So
| it cuts both ways.
May I suggest another scenario? A kind of plot? Hillary
is obviously a target for every rightist cretin in the
country; an articulate, intelligent, ambitious, and highly
competent woman, she must raise hackles in the paleolithic
the way the summer rain raises mushrooms. She is everything
they abominate; hence the noise in these groups. As such,
she can become a political liability; she is, after all
uniquely close to the president.
However, if she is given a very important and very visible
job, she can do it very well and yet come up with something
Slick Willie can differ with and distance himself from.
This will serve the purpose of demonstrating that he is
no Mr. Hillary. For instance, she can come up with the
obvious, a system like Canada's, whereupon the masters of
medicine and insurance will turn over in their multi-
million dollar graves and Willie can rush to reassure. In
the end, those who now rake will need only larger models,
the common man can continue to listen to Limbaugh and
vote to punch himself in the face, and Hillary will become
another liberal lost cause celebre, like Eleanor. What do
you think?
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
ljf
>Robert Kennedy's appointment was the event that motivated the current
>anti-nepotism law in the first place... perhaps the real reason you
Nope. If Mr. Clinton had moved into the White House with a male lover
with Ms. Clinton's qualifications, he'd be very wise to make the same
appointment.
francis deck
the Gipper putting Joan Quigley (Mrs. Reagan's astrologer) in charge
of domestic and foreign policy?
f.deck
Ted Frank
>In article <1993Jan29....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan28.1...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan28....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>>>>
Look up three posts ago, you get your answer. I'm still waiting for
a response.
>>Duh. I'm asking why it matters, or is any different than Bush hiring his
>>best friend to important positions on his staff.
>
>So then you seem to be saying that nepotism is not an issue, and does
>not matter. Is this what you are saying?
I'm saying that it is no different than the tradition of hiring close friends.
I'm saying that the political process can handle it. People will accept
Hillary, because they are aware she is competent. If Clinton tried to
appoint brother Roger head of the FBI, no one would stand for it.
>>Please tell me what action President Clinton can take regarding health
>>care that will not involve a bill being approved by Congress. Thank you.
>
>Was congressional approval required to forbid family planning clinics
>which receive public funds from even -mentioning- abortion as an option?
Yes. As you may or may not recall, one of the issues in Rust v Sullivan
was whether there had been congressional approval.
>Was congressional approval required to lift the ban?
Yes. If the enabling statute had not been originally passed, both
Bush and Clinton would have had their hands tied on the issue.
>There is quite a bit that can be done without congressional involvment.
Only if Congress delegates the power to the president to begin with.
--
ted frank | "Dean, I understand you are teaching the young men
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu | at New Haven what is wrong with our decisions."
the u of c law school | "Oh no, we let them find that out for themselves."
standard disclaimers | --Exchange between S Ct justice and Robert Hutchins
EMIL CHUCK
-Why is putting Mrs. Clinton in charge of some committee worse than
-the Gipper putting Joan Quigley (Mrs. Reagan's astrologer) in charge
-of domestic and foreign policy?
First if someone will clear this up for me, that would be great. Please
correct me if my perspective of this is wrong.
Joan Quigley (much maligned but somehow remembered for the past few
weeks on this network in light of the Hillary's Role threads) had her
influence not in the construction and debate of domestic and foreign
policy. Her influence was more along the lines of scheduling events for
which the Reagans would attend. Hypothetical example: "I see gridlock if
you put your meeting with Congress in Camp David. Take a vacation back
home to CA instead." In other words, Quigley was not in charge of
creating or executing strategies when in came to the bombing of Libya or
the invasion of Grenada; nor do I think Quigley had any role in the
creation or implementation of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Quigley, unless
someone shows me differently, was not a member of any committee on
policy.
In addition, Quigley is not so intimately knowledgable about the
President (then Reagan) as Hillary is with the President (Clinton).
Hillary may very well be qualified to be on this committee, but any
proposals she makes to committee I suspect may not undergo thorough
debate among the committee, just because she has access to Clinton that
the other members who may disagree with her do not enjoy. I do look
forward, however, to any Congressional hearings she may participate in
to defend the program the Task Force proposes, as I am sure many HC
supporters would.
Elizabeth G. Levy
Because she holds contempt for the Power the Stars Have On Our Lives,
and is tempting Fate in her defiance!
David Steinberg
>Y'all don't understand. "Hillary Clinton" is not an issue
>to be debated on the merits, or a person, or even a subject.
>"Hillary Clinton" is a trial balloon being floated by pro-
>fessional social reactionaries to see if it will get any
>action. They're mostly flogging homophobia these days,
>having lost badly on the abortion thing, but they're always
>on the lookout for new bait to attract their prey.
>--
Thank you Gordon for making that clear. After all, conservatives
really don't hold opinions. They just float trial balloons. Oh, I'm
sorry, it's not conservatives who are doing this, it's professional
social reactionaries. You know, those straight white men. They also
invented Andrea Dworkin as a means to discredit feminism... ( Note to
the sarcasm impared- that was sarcastic...)
Michal Leah Peri
"the appointment was not a surprise. Nobody thought that Mrs Clinton ,
an accomplished and ambitious lawyer, would turn herself into a politically
correct version of Dennis Thatcher....
"Nor is the appointment a break with past habits.... most first ladies
end up meddling in politics, in a sometimes undignified manner....
Better a first lady with a formal portfolio and an appetite for detail
than one with a license to meddle and a taste for astrology."
William Johnson
>and people are complaining. And you insist that the outrage is because
>his wife in a woman. Which way is it?
Why is this such a big deal? She's not getting paid, she's not got any power
that doesn't have to be reviewed first before becoming "law". Basically he's
just giving her an official office in the White House, where in fact she
lives anyway, and asking her advice on things.
If he'd suddenly appointed her to some PAID position, not subject to
acceptance by congress AND with the ability to make policy WITHOUT review
(instead of making SUGGESTIONS, which is what her group will do, so I'm
told), THEN I'd be kind pissed.
Will.
--
Copyright (C) 1993 by William Johnson All rights wronged, all lefts made
ad...@access.digex.com without benefit of turn signal.
Will Johnson, 307 S. Reynolds St Box P-216, Alexandria, VA 22304
"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have included a quote in your .sig file."
Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65
>In article <1993Jan25.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>There's a difference between power and influence. Power is the
>>ability to make and implement decisions; influence is the ability to
>>get someone else to make and implement decisions. (Note that
>>influence-peddling, ie lobbying, is not against the law while
>>power-peddling, ie accepting bribes, is.) Most first ladies have had
>>influence but none have had power.
>Edith Wilson?
>>As I recall, Nancy's influence was
>>limited to personnel decisions, and did not extend to health care
>>policy.
>I see no qualitative difference. Other than that the former was behind
>the scenes, while the latter is open.
There's a big difference: Hillary is taking on the role of an official
White House policy formulator, and fair debate within the Administration
on health care is going to be very difficult. This is different than a
first lady making generic suggestions about some issue, this is the blood &
guts details that can sink a program if botched. You *have* to have real
debate in order to work this stuff out. Who's gonna stand up during a
meeting with Bill and say "Hillary, you're full of it!" ? This is even
quite different than JFK-RFK; the psychological vulnerability that Bill
will have from Hillary will be much stronger. One example that people
may want to investigate is the brouhaha from last week - it may have
been Hillary insisting that Bill just sign an executive order to lift
the ban, crassly indifferent to the views of the service chiefs who have
to figure out a method of implementing it. People also may want to look at
whether it was Hillary (with Susan Thomases) that insisted that the initial
AG list be restricted to women only.
>>Hillary, on the other hand, un-elected, un-appointed, and
>>un-accountable to the American people is being offered power.
>Well, so was John Sununu. I much prefer Hillary to him.
I prefer Chiefs-of-Staff *and* First Ladies who understand who's
President.
>At any rate, Congress has to approve anything Hillary's committee
>suggests.
>Besides, as another poster pointed out, it's not a particular
>surprise to voters that Hillary is married to Bill and that she
>wasn't going to spend her time in the White House ghostwriting
>a book for Socks.
And this is what the real problem is for some people: they view spouses
like Barbara Bush with contempt. Never mind what she did in literacy
programs, or how she help bring a human face to the Presidency, man
if she isn't in her power suit, with her Sharper Edge appointment
computer in her hand, well then she's a maid. At least she didn't
put on the homemaker fascade for the election like Hillary Clinton...er
I mean Hillary *Rodham* Clinton.
|_________________________________________________________________|
| martin sulkanen ][ internet: sulk...@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov |
| es 65 ][ span: ssl::sulkanen |
| nasa/msfc ][ voice: 205/544-5823 >>,--```;('> |
| huntsville, al 35812 ][ institute for troutphysics |
|_________________________________________________________________|
John R Gonzalez
criticize Hillary or her stances, especially if she is extremely
resolute in something, without fear of angering Slick, is completely
removed from reality (and obviously has never been married).
Regardless, Hillary didn't get her job because she is the most
qualified here, she got the job because she is married to the president.
Contrary to what several liberal commentators say (i.e. Eleanor
Clift), Hillary would not have been on anyone's short list for a
cabinet position....
John R. Gonzalez
William Crosmun
>In article <1993Jan28.1...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>
>>>>perhaps the real reason you
>>>>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>>>
> lots of things. Keep in mind that she pushed through a
> massive education-reform package in Arkansas, again
> without any particular background in education, and over
> the objections of many entrenched special interests.
> In Today's Wall Street Journal they said that when she
> was done even her husband's Republican opponents were
> strongly impressed.
This "massive education-reform" package consisted of three things:
1. a salary increase for teachers, paid for by
2. a tax increase, and justified by
3. Competency tests. These competency tests were window-dressing to
justify the tax increase, not designed to weed out the incompetent.
And the result: Arkansas testing scores are still at the bottom of the
nation.
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
===============================================================================
"No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
to regulate or subsidize it, and there are always those in Congress
eager to take over more power and control. But it is impossible to
get something for nothing. The government produces no goods, so it
can hand out favors to some people only by taking the earnings and
property of others first."
From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
>
> On the news this morning, they were discussing this. They compared her
> appointment to head up health care reform to Clinton appointing her to
> head up educational reform in Arkansas.
>
> She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
> She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
> bring any bias to the task of health reform.
Her bias is for government activism and control. Given a choice
between private sector, free-market solutions, and government mandated
and controlled programs, which will this open-minded free thinker be
most likely to support?
>
> Her acknowledged competence (by her peers and educators, at the least) is in
> bringing an openmindedness to the proceedings, the ability to comprehend and
> analyze the issues on all sides of the equation, and to pull together a
> consensus from widely divergent opinions.
We all seem to agree that the education system in this country is in
big trouble. If the educators in charge knew what they were doing,
wouldn't they fix the problems? If they think that Hillary is
competent, shouldn't we conclude that she is more likely to be part of
the problem than part of the solution? As for consensus, it's easy to
achieve agreement in Washington. You simply give everybody what they
want and send the bill to the taxpayer.
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
private enterprise and personal initiative."
John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924
===============================================================================
Rich Payne
>In article <C1JuM...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kk...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>
>>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>>
>>won't get fired! The position Mrs. Clinton is taking won't be around
>>long enough for this to become a concern, but I _would_ strongly object
>>to more long-term appointments ( greater than 100 days ).
>>
> Well, if Hillary is doing a bad job then she WILL be removed
>from her job. President Clinton(can YOU say 'President Clinton'?) isn't
>relax. Hey, who knows, maybe she might even do a good job :)
It may take four years to tell that she is doing a bad job, and long-term
effects of policy changes are not usually immediately apparent. I think
it may be a bit early to relax, there is a lot riding on this issue, and
guess who will end up paying for -whatever- is done... Hint, don't count
on foreign aid.
BTW, someone from Arkansas posted about Hillary's results in the education
reform in Arkansas, and it did not amount to anything that would rate the
glowing testominials that I have seen here. It amounted to a tax increase
for a very minor consession, the teachers may have to submit to testing
under some unspecified conditions.
And I find it odd that everyone has so far shown temporary brain-fade
when questioned about the charge of nepotism. Even repeated questions
have somehow gone unanswered. I take that to mean that the charge is
valid, and Hillary's supporters have no answer for the charge, so they
remain silent.
Rich
Peter Nelson
>In article <1993Jan28....@adobe.com> ken...@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>>
>> On the news this morning, they were discussing this. They compared her
>> appointment to head up health care reform to Clinton appointing her to
>> head up educational reform in Arkansas.
>>
>> She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
>> She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
>> bring any bias to the task of health reform.
>
>Her bias is for government activism and control. Given a choice
>between private sector, free-market solutions, and government mandated
>and controlled programs, which will this open-minded free thinker be
>most likely to support?
But why is this a special indictment of Hillary Clinton? Almost
*ALL* of the Democrats have this bias, as indeed, do almost all
of the Republicans (just in different areas -- there wasn't a
major candidate of any party who seemed to truly value individualism,
and even the fringe-party libertarians managed to only get about
a third of the vote total they got in the previous election. So
clearly those of us who value individualist solutions have no
political party to turn to.)
Do you think that if President Clinton had appointed someone else
we would have gotten some minimalist government libertarian in
there instead? Or is your argument that because she is more
competant and energetic she is more of a threat because she might
actually manage to get her ideas implemented? I might be more
receptive to this idea. One of the reasons I didn't vote for
any of the major candidates was precisely that all of them wanted
to expand the role of government in one or more aspects of my
life.
I haven't been defending Hillary Clinton's appointment here
because I agree with her, or her husband's, views. I've been
defending her because I think she's being attacked for all
the wrong reasons, and that sexism is behind many of the attcks.
---peter
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
(John R Gonzalez) says:
>Regardless, Hillary didn't get her job because she is the most
>qualified here, she got the job because she is married to the president.
>Contrary to what several liberal commentators say (i.e. Eleanor
>Clift), Hillary would not have been on anyone's short list for a
>cabinet position....
Er, well, says you. As you noted, several liberal commentators disagree.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
Ted Frank
>Regardless, Hillary didn't get her job because she is the most
>qualified here, she got the job because she is married to the president.
>Contrary to what several liberal commentators say (i.e. Eleanor
>Clift), Hillary would not have been on anyone's short list for a
>cabinet position....
That's really false. Clinton was not only one of the top woman lawyers
in America, she's one of the top *lawyers* in America. She serves on
several corporate boards. The University of Chicago Law School, not known
for either its political correctness or its liberalism, put her on the
Visiting Committee, and there isn't a single person on the VC for nepotistic
reasons. Clinton was big in the ABA. She certainly had better credentials
for attorney general than did Zoe Baird (who also has a famous husband).
She graduated first in her class at what was then the top law school in
America.
I'd say that there was a better-than-even chance that Clinton would have
been named to a cabinet spot if a Democrat other than Bill had won the
White House. She certainly had a better chance than Bill did.
--
ted frank | "The Mets team is full of players who were great
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu | ten years ago. The Expos team is full of players
the u of c law school | who will be on the Mets in ten years."
standard disclaimers | -- David M. Nieporent
Rich Payne
>In article <1993Jan29.2...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan29....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan28.1...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan28....@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>What in heck is the difference between hiring a relative and hiring
>>>>>a close friend? Other than that one is easily identifiable?
>>>>>
>>Very funny. What do you say to the charge of nepotism then?
>
>Look up three posts ago, you get your answer. I'm still waiting for
>a response.
I have just examined all of your posts for the last 10 days, and you have
not asswered the question. You can do so simply and clearly in response
right now, or you can avoid the question again like you have in the past.
Do you support nepotism as right, or claim that it is a non-issue?
As for your question, the difference is that it is legal to hire close friends,
and it is illegal and ethically questionable to hire relatives, despite any
qualifications for a job.
>>>Duh. I'm asking why it matters, or is any different than Bush hiring his
>>>best friend to important positions on his staff.
>>
>>So then you seem to be saying that nepotism is not an issue, and does
>>not matter. Is this what you are saying?
>
>I'm saying that it is no different than the tradition of hiring close friends.
But we were discussing nepotism, an issue you avoid like the plague.
And many disagree that it is "no different", congress disagreed strongly
enough to pass legislation making it illegal.
>I'm saying that the political process can handle it.
They already have, they made it illegal.
> People will accept
>Hillary, because they are aware she is competent.
I am not aware that she is competent, how about showing me. What exactly
is it that makes you think she is "competent", with regards to the
health-care issue?
> If Clinton tried to
>appoint brother Roger head of the FBI, no one would stand for it.
Yes, you get it, hiring -RELATIVES- is a ethically questionable thing.
There are no comparable eithical questions for close friends.
>>>Please tell me what action President Clinton can take regarding health
>>>care that will not involve a bill being approved by Congress. Thank you.
>>
>>Was congressional approval required to forbid family planning clinics
>>which receive public funds from even -mentioning- abortion as an option?
>
>Yes. As you may or may not recall, one of the issues in Rust v Sullivan
>was whether there had been congressional approval.
No, I did not recall, thanx for the reminder.
>>Was congressional approval required to lift the ban?
>
>Yes. If the enabling statute had not been originally passed, both
>Bush and Clinton would have had their hands tied on the issue.
>
>>There is quite a bit that can be done without congressional involvment.
>
>Only if Congress delegates the power to the president to begin with.
All power is granted by the Constitution, which grants specific powers
(and denies specific powers) to both congress and the president. The
judicial branch has no comparable checks, the only way a supreme court
judge can be unseated is through impeachment, or acting in an un-judgelike
fashion. Congress cannot delegate power to the president.
>--
>ted frank | "Dean, I understand you are teaching the young men
>th...@ellis.uchicago.edu | at New Haven what is wrong with our decisions."
>the u of c law school | "Oh no, we let them find that out for themselves."
>standard disclaimers | --Exchange between S Ct justice and Robert Hutchins
Rich
Janice Kendall
I haven't made it to the library yet (my hours don't match theirs). Could
someone at a university - someone in education, maybe - look into the results
of Mrs. Clinton's efforts to improve education in Arkansas?
All I remember is a PBS special on education, which was reviewing the new
programs in Arkansas which had reportedly become the model for other states.
The one program which really impressed me was getting low-income, under-
educated parents back into school to learn the basics. Part of their
education is to get them together with their young children and teach
the parents how to teach their children. Innovative and reeking of
family values.
I have trouble believing the above poster's claim.
Dave O'Shea
> Here's a lovely idea about the "Hillary in the West wing broohaha".
> A lot of people think she isn't competent to do the job. A lot of
> people fear that she wasn't the right choice for the job.
Depends how you define competent. I don't dispute that she's an
intelligent, articuate woman. I do believe that she's a control freak of
the worst kind, though.
> These people might be right, they might be wrong.
My money goes with the "right" crowd.
> Most of them who are complaining the loudest are very vocal
> detractors of Bill CLinton, and to some extent,would like to
> see him fail even if that would be bnad for the country.
I have no doubt that Slick will be a failure. Hell, it's only a week
into his administration, and he's gone out of his way to insure that I
collect on my "one-term-Willie" bets.
I don't hope any bad will come to the U.S.; quite the opposite: I hope
that, in his spectacular failure, people will see the folly of trusting
a government to run a country.
> So here is my suggestion - be quiet for a while.
You *gotta* be kidding. Slick Willie is the most contemptible example of
a politician I've ever seen elected. I *like* making jokes about
politicians, taking cheap shots at them, and pointing out the massive
inconsistencies and hypocrisy present in these sanctimonious fools. What
you ask is equal to asking every joke writer to forget about Dan Quayle!
> If Hillary fails, then you will have facts on your side.
> If Hillary doesn't fail, then you won't look like a dolt
> because you have been predicting the failure for so long.
Hillary already is a failure. It's like predicting that sundown will
occur sometime after 5:00pm tonight - all I have to do is look up what
time sunset occured on this day last year, and bet that it'll be about
the same time.
> You certainly don't expect Bill to fire Hillary because
> a lot of Dan Quayle loving reactionary republicans from
> the cornbelt don't like here, do you? So what good does
> your bitching do?
God forbid, no! I hope that she's a regular figure in every cabinet
meeting, and gets on the news every night. I'm not the religious type,
but if I were, I might see her as the greatest blessing the Republicans
could ask for. This is better than Billy Carter!
> Wait for a bit, and you'll either have ammunition to shoot with,
> or you'll avoid having made a mistake in your predicitions
> (remember the boob who said "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN
> AND RE-ELECTED BUSH" early election morning. Bet he still feels
> like a boob!)
Heck, I don't want Bush back, either. Four years and all he did was
allow government to grow faster than even Reagan did.
--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
- P.J. O'Rourke
Ted Frank
>I have just examined all of your posts for the last 10 days, and you have
>not asswered the question. You can do so simply and clearly in response
>right now, or you can avoid the question again like you have in the past.
>Do you support nepotism as right, or claim that it is a non-issue?
It is an issue only when additional public funds are diverted to the
official's family. In such a situation there might be a conflict of
interest. Hillary Clinton is unpaid in her unofficial position, so
the main concern of nepotism is moot. Therefore, in this particular
case, it is a non-issue.
The ban against nepotism isn't a worry that family members might influence
policy decisions -- that's been true since the beginning of time, and
could only be controlled through sequestration. The concern over nepotism
is that public officials might hire family members in do-nothing jobs to
raid the public treasury.
>As for your question, the difference is that it is legal to hire close friends,
>and it is illegal and ethically questionable to hire relatives, despite any
>qualifications for a job.
What Bill Clinton did was neither illegal, nor ethically questionable. You
have yet to show why this particular instance is ethically questionable.
The main concern of nepotism is addressed by having her take the position
unpaid.
Hiring close friends who may not be qualified, on the other hand, though
legal, is certainly ethically questionable.
>>I'm saying that the political process can handle it.
>
>They already have, they made it illegal.
For the reasons already mentioned. Not to try to shut up the wife of
the President. At any rate, it is not at all clear that Congress has
the constitutional power to make certain presidential appointments
illegal.
>> People will accept
>>Hillary, because they are aware she is competent.
>
>I am not aware that she is competent, how about showing me. What exactly
>is it that makes you think she is "competent", with regards to the
>health-care issue?
She is intelligent, widely respected, has a proven ability to lead,
a sound grounding in public policy and legal issues, and comes to the
position without ties to the medical lobby.
>> If Clinton tried to
>>appoint brother Roger head of the FBI, no one would stand for it.
>
>Yes, you get it, hiring -RELATIVES- is a ethically questionable thing.
>There are no comparable eithical questions for close friends.
Fine. If Ronald Reagan had attempted to appoint close friend Bob Hope
to Secretary of the Treasury, no one would stand for it. (Though they
did stand for it when he appointed Meese to AG.) The objection to Clinton
appointing Roger to an unpaid policy position would be strenuously objected to,
by myself and by other defenders of Hillary.
[congressional delegation issues moved to new thread]
Ted Frank
>In article <1993Jan30.1...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Only if Congress delegates the power to the president to begin with.
>
>All power is granted by the Constitution, which grants specific powers
>(and denies specific powers) to both congress and the president. The
>judicial branch has no comparable checks, the only way a supreme court
>judge can be unseated is through impeachment, or acting in an un-judgelike
>fashion.
First, impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives wants it to
be. Justice Douglas came pretty close to getting impeached by Rep. Gerald
Ford for marrying a woman a third of his age. You pooh-pooh the impeachment
check, but it can loom pretty large -- it doesn't because the Court stays
within legitimate constraints.
The appointments process is also a check. Just ask Judge Bork.
There's also a further check in that the legislature can withhold issues
from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
There's a further further check in that there's nothing in the Constitution
that says there has to be nine Justices. And there weren't always nine
justices, either.
Finally, there's always the Article V amendment process.
All in all, there are quite a few checks.
>Congress cannot delegate power to the president.
This is false.
Janice Kendall
>>
>> On the news this morning, they were discussing this. They compared her
>> appointment to head up health care reform to Clinton appointing her to
>> head up educational reform in Arkansas.
>>
>> She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
>> She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
>> bring any bias to the task of health reform.
>
>Her bias is for government activism and control. Given a choice
>between private sector, free-market solutions, and government mandated
>and controlled programs, which will this open-minded free thinker be
>most likely to support?
She may well choose the private sector - you really don't know.
>
>>
>> Her acknowledged competence (by her peers and educators, at the least) is in
>> bringing an openmindedness to the proceedings, the ability to comprehend and
>> analyze the issues on all sides of the equation, and to pull together a
>> consensus from widely divergent opinions.
>
>We all seem to agree that the education system in this country is in
>big trouble. If the educators in charge knew what they were doing,
>wouldn't they fix the problems?
Not if they were in disagreement.
>If they think that Hillary is
>competent, shouldn't we conclude that she is more likely to be part of
>the problem than part of the solution?
No. Why should we conclude that?
> As for consensus, it's easy to
>achieve agreement in Washington. You simply give everybody what they
>want and send the bill to the taxpayer.
If it's so easy to achieve agreement in Washington, what is all the
talk about Clinton breaking the gridlock?
>
>
>===============================================================================
>William Crosmun
>cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
>
>===============================================================================
>"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
> question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
> private enterprise and personal initiative."
>
> John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924
>
>===============================================================================
Your post has the odor of sour grapes.
Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
"Creativity overcomes violence."
John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
starbuck
>>Regardless, Hillary didn't get her job because she is the most
>>qualified here, she got the job because she is married to the president.
>>Contrary to what several liberal commentators say (i.e. Eleanor
>>Clift), Hillary would not have been on anyone's short list for a
>>cabinet position....
>Er, well, says you. As you noted, several liberal commentators disagree.
Of course liberal commentators disagree, they have a politcal agenda to
promote, jeeze. I noted today that another liberal commentator, Anthony
Lewis is trying to plant a seed of doubt that the recent outrage against
the Rodham government is just the result of the religious right and
talk radio. One can see that they are in fear of losing their influence.
Not to the religious right but to talk radio.
It is a propagander trick to link talk radio to the ultra right. It is
talk radio that is competing with them in promoting their agenda. I mean
if no one listens to them their careers are over.
starbuck
Where are the Prawns?
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>As I recall, Nancy's influence was
>>limited to personnel decisions, and did not extend to health care
>>policy.
>I see no qualitative difference. Other than that the former was behind
>the scenes, while the latter is open.
There's a big difference: Hillary is taking on the role of an official
White House policy formulator, and fair debate within the Administration
on health care is going to be very difficult. This is different than a
Why any more difficult than with any other good friend of Clinton's in
charge? You are saying that not only is Hillary married to the
President, but she's an idiotic tyrant too, with plans to ride
roughshod over anyone with a differing opinion.
first lady making generic suggestions about some issue, this is the blood &
guts details that can sink a program if botched. You *have* to have real
debate in order to work this stuff out. Who's gonna stand up during a
meeting with Bill and say "Hillary, you're full of it!" ? This is even
The same ones, I guess, who would tell the Prez the same thing. So
what? Do you have to be hostile and offensive to be effective? Do
you have to see insults flying before you're satisfied that there is
"real debate?"
quite different than JFK-RFK; the psychological vulnerability that Bill
will have from Hillary will be much stronger. One example that people
may want to investigate is the brouhaha from last week - it may have
been Hillary insisting that Bill just sign an executive order to lift
the ban, crassly indifferent to the views of the service chiefs who have
to figure out a method of implementing it. People also may want to look at
whether it was Hillary (with Susan Thomases) that insisted that the initial
AG list be restricted to women only.
Why look at who did it? The Prez is responsible. Who advised him to
do it is irrelevant outside the White House -- it's Clinton's problem.
If it was a bad idea, it's Clinton who will pay the political price.
>>Hillary, on the other hand, un-elected, un-appointed, and
>>un-accountable to the American people is being offered power.
>Well, so was John Sununu. I much prefer Hillary to him.
I prefer Chiefs-of-Staff *and* First Ladies who understand who's
President.
Do you understand who is President?
>Besides, as another poster pointed out, it's not a particular
>surprise to voters that Hillary is married to Bill and that she
>wasn't going to spend her time in the White House ghostwriting
>a book for Socks.
And this is what the real problem is for some people: they view spouses
like Barbara Bush with contempt. Never mind what she did in literacy
programs, or how she help bring a human face to the Presidency, man
if she isn't in her power suit, with her Sharper Edge appointment
I don't view Barbara Bush with contempt. I just don't think her way
of doing things is the only way. I was bothered by the influence of
Nancy Reagan not because she was the President's wife but because I
thought she was an idiot.
computer in her hand, well then she's a maid. At least she didn't
put on the homemaker fascade for the election like Hillary Clinton...er
I mean Hillary *Rodham* Clinton.
Do you have some particular problem with what she prefers to be
called?
-- JC
Ted Frank
>But if the person he appoints is HIS WIFE, then there are many other
>*non-job-related* factors coming into play, not the least of which is
>the desire he shares with most other human beings to avoid marital
>conflict. Were Hillary's performance to be less than optimal, he
>would NOT be at liberty to give her the frank criticism she would deserve.
Why is this any less true for a wife than for a close friend? Especially
when the wife has already shown a clear understanding of when to bow to
her husband's best interests?
Where are the Prawns?
>
> She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
> She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
> bring any bias to the task of health reform.
Her bias is for government activism and control. Given a choice
between private sector, free-market solutions, and government mandated
and controlled programs, which will this open-minded free thinker be
most likely to support?
Can you point me at a place in the world where a private sector,
free-market solution is in place and producing great results for
people at all income levels, or is this just a religious vision of
Libertarian Heaven?
We all seem to agree that the education system in this country is in
big trouble. If the educators in charge knew what they were doing,
wouldn't they fix the problems?
Sure, if they also had absolute power and unlimited funding.
If they think that Hillary is competent, shouldn't we conclude that
she is more likely to be part of the problem than part of the
solution?
Since your solution would apparently be to have all educators shoot
themselves, I guess so.
-- JC
Loren I. Petrich
[On how Bill Clinton will be reluctant to criticize his wife Hillary
in the name of marital harmony...]
Well, there is a such thing as a marriage where the two
partners continually backbite....
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
Allen R Sparks
> First, impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives wants it to
> be. Justice Douglas came pretty close to getting impeached by Rep. Gerald
> Ford for marrying a woman a third of his age. You pooh-pooh the impeachment
> check, but it can loom pretty large -- it doesn't because the Court stays
> within legitimate constraints.
Hmmmm.... Not entirely accurate. For one thing, the House of
Represenateives can impeach a public official, but one member can't.
Gerald Ford never came close to GETTING Justice Douglas impeached. He
did make the attempt at the request of Pres Richard Nixon, but ended
up with egg on his face. The House never took his attempts seriously.
He became a laughing stock for awhile because of that.
This is pretty serious when you're the Minority Leader. If a Minority
Leader is going to have influence, the members have to take him
seriously don't they? He has very little formal power. Richard Nixon
did not do Ford any favors getting him into that mess.
Of course, historically, Presidents have had very little success in
tangling with the court in that way. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
remove some Justices through impeachment, and failed miserably, and
Franklin Roosevelt's court packing scheme was hooted out of Congress.
=== Al Sparks
Ted Frank
>In article <1993Feb2.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> First, impeachment is whatever the House of Representatives wants it to
>> be. Justice Douglas came pretty close to getting impeached by Rep. Gerald
>> Ford for marrying a woman a third of his age. You pooh-pooh the impeachment
>> check, but it can loom pretty large -- it doesn't because the Court stays
>> within legitimate constraints.
>
>tangling with the court in that way. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
>remove some Justices through impeachment, and failed miserably, and
>Franklin Roosevelt's court packing scheme was hooted out of Congress.
That's because they tried to expand impeachment. The justices they were
aiming for were acting within their authority, so the impeachment/court-
packing was seen as blatantly political. If the Supreme Court ever had
moved outside of its legitimate authority, then you might find impeachments
and the like being much more successful.
As my favorite example goes, the fact that very few people get tickets for
running red lights doesn't mean that traffic lights are ineffective, it
just demonstrates that traffic lights are so effective that people don't
violate them.
--
ted frank | "So in 1986 Deprizio was lured to a vacant parking
th...@ellis.uchicago.edu | lot, where an assassin's gun and the obligations
the u of c law school | of a lifetime were discharged together."
standard disclaimers | -- Judge Frank Easterbrook, 874 F2d 1187
Rich Payne
>
> Did anyone ever consider that maybe nobody
> want's the job of Health Czar?
Did you consider the folly of doing -anything- controversial in an election
year?
> Maybe Hillary
> took the job rather than embarass the administration
> by exposing the hopelessness of the health care
> problem.
Huh? Is it indeed hopeless? Then what can even Hillary do?
> Isn't that what wives are for? (doing
> the dirty work?)
Odd, I thought that was what husbands were for. Wanna trade sexist
stereotypes? Looks like you might have some new ones.
> Judy
Rich
Michael D Zakosek
Is the answer that she bowed to her husband's best interests or her own
best interests in her ability to get more power?
Z
mey...@alleg.edu
> >achieve agreement in Washington. You simply give everybody what they
> >want and send the bill to the taxpayer.
>
> If it's so easy to achieve agreement in Washington, what is all the
> talk about Clinton breaking the gridlock?
>
> Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
> "Creativity overcomes violence."
> John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
>
Clinton talked about breaking the gridlock because Bush and other key
Republicans wouldn't let Congress do whatever it wanted. It will be easy
now... Congress has a blank check and we foot the bill.
Jon Meyer
mey...@alleg.edu
But how is she qualified to reform this country's health care system?
Everyone yaps about her being intelligent and competent. Many of my
professors here are intelligent and competent, but they wouldn't know
where to begin to reform the health care system. Rodham has no experience
in the health care area, and therefore I cannot see how she can be
qualified. I can certainly see why people are calling this the Billary
Clinton administration.
Jon Meyer
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
>MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) writes:
>>gonz...@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:
>>>Contrary to what several liberal commentators say (i.e. Eleanor
>>>Clift), Hillary would not have been on anyone's short list for a
>>>cabinet position....
>>Er, well, says you. As you noted, several liberal commentators disagree.
>Of course liberal commentators disagree, they have a politcal agenda to
>promote, jeeze.
And you (ie, conservative anti-Hillary types) don't?
Bill Anderson
: >In article <1993Jan25.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
: debate in order to work this stuff out. Who's gonna stand up during a
: will have from Hillary will be much stronger. One example that people
: may want to investigate is the brouhaha from last week - it may have
: been Hillary insisting that Bill just sign an executive order to lift
: the ban, crassly indifferent to the views of the service chiefs who have
: to figure out a method of implementing it. People also may want to look at
: whether it was Hillary (with Susan Thomases) that insisted that the initial
: AG list be restricted to women only.
: And this is what the real problem is for some people: they view spouses
: like Barbara Bush with contempt. Never mind what she did in literacy
: programs, or how she help bring a human face to the Presidency, man
: if she isn't in her power suit, with her Sharper Edge appointment
: put on the homemaker fascade for the election like Hillary Clinton...er
: I mean Hillary *Rodham* Clinton.
What is this snide objection to Hillary's name? I don't get that.
And why do Hillary's detractors seem to think that Clinton's
administration is full of sniveling wimps who won't stand up to
the boss's wife? People who reach that level of power tend to
have pretty big egos; I don't imagine too many people will have
too much trouble telling Hillary she's full of shit, if she is.
Bill
Bob Blackshaw
>In article <1kc3lo...@meaddata.meaddata.com> jo...@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan28....@adobe.com>, ken...@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>>|> On the news this morning, they were discussing this. They compared her
>>|> appointment to head up health care reform to Clinton appointing her to
>>|> head up educational reform in Arkansas.
>>|>
>>|> She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
>>|> She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
>>|> bring any bias to the task of health reform.
>>|>
>>|> Her acknowledged competence (by her peers and educators, at the least) is in
>>|> bringing an openmindedness to the proceedings, the ability to comprehend and
>>|> analyze the issues on all sides of the equation, and to pull together a
>>|> consensus from widely divergent opinions.
>>
>>This is rich. Hillary's main accomplishment for "educational reform" in
>>Arkansas was to forge a compromise in which the state sales tax was hiked up
>>by a full percentage point in exchange for skills testing for teachers. The
>>testing turned out to be a joke: teachers could only be asked to take the
>>exam under special circumstances, and if the score was unsatisfactory, they
>>had two years to try again. Meanwhile, Arkansas is STILL the worst state in
So you want Rome built in a day? Tell us, which direction is Arkansas
going with test scores? I'll bet you will find it going up at a faster
pace than the rest of the country. In fact the real laugh is that all
of the states who have been the butt of everyone's jokes are the ones
on the way up while the two silicon valleys are slow sinking into the
mud. At least Arkansas pays its debts with 'real' money :-)
>>the nation for public education. I hope she doesn't try the same thing for
>>my health care.
>>
Not to worry, John, health care is so screwed up that absolutely no one
could make it worse if they tried.
>>--
>>// John Townsend "I thought I was Legal Conversion Engineering
>>// Mead Data Central wrong once, but jo...@skibum.meaddata.com
>>// 8891 Gander Creek Dr. I was mistaken." ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
>>// Miamisburg, OH 45342 8-} (513) 865-7250
REB
Rich Payne
>In article <1993Jan29.2...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan29....@adobe.com> ken...@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>>>In article <C1MIM...@cs.psu.edu> bea...@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>nels...@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>>>In article <1993Jan28.1...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1k83bj...@gap.caltech.edu> pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>>>>hill...@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard,F7 Clark,50649,) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>perhaps the real reason you
>>>>>>>>are so quick to defend the appointment is because she's *female*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. It's because she's *competent*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because she's a woman? What competence has she demonstrated in national
>>>>>>affairs or health care reform? Can you provide the basis for your
>>>>>>opinion?
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>> She might screw up big time in this job - it's an
>>>>> extremely tough assignment. But so might someone
>>>>> with a medical or insurance background. But I don't
>>>>> think her assignment would raise so many eyebrows if
>>>>> she weren't the President's wife.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but whether or not one agrees with her appointment,
>>>>your last sentence raises the important question:
>>>>
>>>> *Would* she have been appointed if she weren't the president's wife?
>>>>
>>>>Don
>>>>--
>>>>bea...@cs.psu.edu Opinions from the PC-challenged
>>>
>>>
>>> The answer is YES.
>>
>>Since you put that in caps, I imagine it must be more than just your
>>opinion. Hows about letting us in on some of the details?
>
> My opinion shaped by the interviews of the political analysts
> expounding on the subject of Hillary Rodham (sp?) Clinton.
> I'm just enthusiastic - I've heard some of what has happened
> to the educational system in Arkansas and how it has become a
> model for other states. Her appointment to this commission
> implies, to me, that some really creative, un-biased thinking
> may produce something really beneficial for the people and the
> state of the economy.
I guess we shall see.
>>> And furthermore, I hear that she would have been
>>> on a very short list for a cabinet position if she had not been the
>>> President's wife.
>>
>>Who's list? If Bush's list, why did he not hire her earlier? And which
>>cabinet position?
>>
>
> Why would a Democrat be on a Republican's list of potential cabinet
> members? The current President is a Democrat as is she.
You said she would be in line for -some- cabinet position. Since the
two candidates were Bush and Clinton (I did not really count Perot),
and you were talking about the situation "if she had not been the President's
wife", that seemed to leave Bush as the only possible President who's list
she might have been on.
I was hoping you might fill in -which- "very short list for a cabinet position"
you were referring too. I asked for clarification as well.
>>> Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>>>
>>> Don't Panic! Clinton will be our *42*nd President.
>>
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>pay...@netcom.com
>
> Janice Kendall ken...@adobe.com ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
>
> "Creativity overcomes violence."
> John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
>
>
>
Rich
starbuck
>If he'd suddenly appointed her to some PAID position, not subject to
>acceptance by congress AND with the ability to make policy WITHOUT review
>(instead of making SUGGESTIONS, which is what her group will do, so I'm
>told), THEN I'd be kind pissed.
You should be. The Clinton's "skirt" the law by making Hillary's position
unpaid. But that is the only difference. So by letter of law maybe they
are not breaking it, but only maybe.
Have no doubt about it, Hillary is calling the shots. She is co-president
in the least. On C-span she met with the democratic leadership and afterward
walked with them to meet the press. Guess what. The press defered to her.
Hillary is making policy, period, and at this time all we can do is accept
it. I presonally think her goal is to be the first official female president.
The only problem is she is neither elected nor appointed to any office. In
other words she is not accoutable. When it comes to her position, and we
can all make believe she is only making suggestions, as co-president,
her suggestions will carry the weight of a presidential order. Do the PC,
the feminist and the left really believe they are putting something over
on people? Are you in for a rude awakening.
Right now the democrats in Congress are sucking up to the Clinton's. This
may last, but Hillary has only been in non-office for a few weeks. Will
she make friends or enemies in Congress, that remains to be seen. I don't
think anyone know's enough about Hillary at this time to tell. But like
it or not we are stuck with her and her decisions.
starbuck
Rich Payne
> And, sorry, i do think the health care situation is hopeless;
> I send Clinton email often (since I got the address) with
> suggestions on this subject, because I can't complain if I
> don't at least TRY... However, the AMA has too strong a
> hold on healthcare in this country and the moneied interests
> are too inclined to hang onto their own to give a blank
> check to the health care providers... Little will be done
> to slow the spiraling costs and, most important, make health
> care available to the many people in this country who make
> too much money to qualify for welfare and not enough to
> purchase health insurance.
Last night there was a program on channel 60 where they had an interview
with Dr. Coop (Cooper?), the ex surgeon general.
He talked a lot about the health care problem in this country, the power
and -number- of lobbyists who have worked hard to create the current
situation. He said there are many aspects to the problem, lack of health
and sex education, lack of any preventative medicine, and showed where
the money is going. Did you know that a quarter of every health-care
dollar is administrative cost? What a waste, $15 Billion spent pushing
papers.
Our current system benefits from treating your sickness, not from making
you well. And it is getting worse.
BTW, I disagree with the "health-care" label, they do not dispense health,
but medicines, drugs, and often unneeded surgery.
BTW2, since you originally used the term "dirty work", what did you mean
by that term?
Rich
Angela K. Isaacson
kid? All she is concerned about is her liberal self. As far as Billary
Clinton is concerned, he is about a joke!!!
William Crosmun
>In article <1993Feb1.1...@dg-rtp.dg.com> cro...@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
> In article <1993Jan28....@adobe.com> ken...@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
> >
> > She was not an education professional; she is not a health professional.
> > She did not bring any bias to the task of educational reform; she will not
> > bring any bias to the task of health reform.
>
> Her bias is for government activism and control. Given a choice
> between private sector, free-market solutions, and government mandated
> and controlled programs, which will this open-minded free thinker be
> most likely to support?
>
>Can you point me at a place in the world where a private sector,
>free-market solution is in place and producing great results for
>people at all income levels, or is this just a religious vision of
>Libertarian Heaven?
Certainly. The free-market solution to the need for pencils is in
place and prducing great results. You can buy them just about
anywhere and they are well within the budget of even the poorest
Americans. Now, can you point me at a place in the world where a
government mandated program is in place and producing great results
for people at all income levels, or is this just a religious vision of
Statist heaven.
>
> We all seem to agree that the education system in this country is in
> big trouble. If the educators in charge knew what they were doing,
> wouldn't they fix the problems?
>
>Sure, if they also had absolute power and unlimited funding.
Congress appears to have absolute power and unlimited funding and the
result is that they are creating more problems than they are solving.
I lack your faith that educators would do better.
>
> If they think that Hillary is competent, shouldn't we conclude that
> she is more likely to be part of the problem than part of the
> solution?
>
>Since your solution would apparently be to have all educators shoot
>themselves, I guess so.
>
>-- JC
===============================================================================
William Crosmun
cro...@dg-rtp.dg.com
===============================================================================
"No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
to regulate or subsidize it, and there are always those in Congress
eager to take over more power and control. But it is impossible to
get something for nothing. The government produces no goods, so it
can hand out favors to some people only by taking the earnings and
property of others first."
From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992
===============================================================================
Richard Crisp
The President and Mr. Clinton:
Between Ms. Rodham and the nannygate situation, I wonder if we are
going to have a replay of hte Harding administration? Perhaps the
nannys also work with teapots? The teapot dome affair being
replayed in the gay 90s; just about par for the course!
--
Richard Crisp Cupertino, Ca. cr...@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk (408) 253 4541 fax
Terri Buchman
star...@galaxy.ucr.edu writes:
>Have no doubt about it, Hillary is calling the shots. She is
co-president
>in the least. On C-span she met with the democratic
leadership and afterward
>walked with them to meet the press. Guess what. The press
defered to her.
>Hillary is making policy, period, and at this time all we can
do is accept
>it. I presonally think her goal is to be the first official
female president.
>The only problem is she is neither elected nor appointed to
any office. In
>other words she is not accoutable. When it comes to her
position, and we
>can all make believe she is only making suggestions, as
co-president,
>her suggestions will carry the weight of a presidential order.
Do the PC,
>the feminist and the left really believe they are putting
something over
>on people? Are you in for a rude awakening.
Obviously, you haven't gotten your copy of the WorldWide
Feminist Agenda ("WWFA") yet. Too bad. In it we outline our
goals for world domination, better microwave meals and a
womyn's bathroom near the House Chamber. However the biggest
item on the WFA list of goals was getting a woman into the
White House in an unofficial, unpaid, supportive position. The
plan nearly floundered when we couldn't decide who that woman
should be. The WWFA mounted huge satellite dishes on top of
it's international headquarters in Cambridge, MA and began
beaming out mindreading messages in an attempt to find this
person.
Imagine our surprise when the data began to coalesce around the
little state of Arkansas. Hillary Clinton was a nearly perfect
choice. She was strong (an olympic medalist for bench pressing
750 pounds in the '76 games), and an ardent feminist (she
created the involuntary castration program at Arky U - and
disguised it by calling it Razorback Therapy). Hillary had
also developed a mind control device of her own that allowed
her to completely dominate her husband's actions and thoughts.
She could say something totally ridiculous and PC like
"children's rights" and her puppet of a husband would
mindlessly respond by raising the welfare payments by 500
dollars a week. Although the fascist, male dominated media
refused to report it, Arkansas, under Hillary, had become a
feminist paradise.
The WWFA set out to recruit Hillary for the White House job.
Hillary understood that we needed a stealth candidate so she
volunteered for surgery to alter her appearance. We shifted
her height from 6'4" to her present 5'4". Surgery reduced her
bone density by 50% thus softening her facial features. We
also equipped her with a transmitter that would jam reporter's
brain waves and prevent them from reporting that Hillary was a
WWFAer. And, in our crowning, most brilliant piece of
subterfuge, we died her hair blond. Our research had shown us
that men are genetically incapable of resisting blond women and
will blindly obey all of their commands. We were ready.
At first Hillary had a little trouble hiding her WWFA feelings.
The New Hampshire primary nearly gave us fits when the mind
control device her husband was wearing broke and he began
veering from our carefully written script. But Hillary was
able to regain control in time for the 60 Minutes interview and
the rest is history. Even our carefully written cookie recipe
(with it's secret impotence causing ingredients) got into the
media. The campaign was a complete success. We now had
Hillary right where we wanted her, calling the shots, but
unofficially. Hillary gets to recraft America and her husband
gets to take the heat. And best of all, no one will ever
notice that Hillary is the real power because we forbad the
press from mentioning it. Let our enemies beware, America is
now ours!
:^).
Bob Rahe
>the money is going. Did you know that a quarter of every health-care
>dollar is administrative cost? What a waste, $15 Billion spent pushing
>papers.
And a majority of it is required by the BIG GOVERNMENT.
>Our current system benefits from treating your sickness, not from making
>you well. And it is getting worse.
But people will not pay to make themselves well. (Most, anyway).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: - |
|Internet: b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu | - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE |Save whales; and kill babies? |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
William C. Barwell
The elections been over months ago and you're still bitter? Oh well,
you'll just have to learn to live with it and not let it eat at your guts
until yopu have to get on the net and spill pointless and insipid bile.
Get a grip, kid!
Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston. And the denizens of the
White House for the last 12 years were competent? Heh heh!
--
po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
starbuck
>In article <25...@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck,
>star...@galaxy.ucr.edu writes:
>>Have no doubt about it, Hillary is calling the shots. She is
>co-president in the least. On C-span she met with the democratic
>leadership and afterward walked with them to meet the press. Guess what.
>The press defered to her. Hillary is making policy, period, and at this
>time all we can do is accept it. I presonally think her goal is to be
>the first official female president. The only problem is she is neither
>elected nor appointed to any office. In other words she is not accoutable.
>When it comes to her position, and we can all make believe she is only
>making suggestions, as co-president, her suggestions will carry the
>weight of a presidential order. Do the PC, the feminist and the left
>really believe they are putting something over on people? Are you in
>for a rude awakening.
[ deleted satire on the feminist agenda ]
You missed the point only seeing the the last two sentences. When I
asked if the PC ect ect were trying to put something over it was in
reference to several articles including the one I quoted. The quotes
in question refered to the playing down of Hillary Clinton's role.
"Oh it ain't nothin, it is just suggesting". Many of us _do not_
fear a woman in power. What we do fear is the slickness of the Hillary
situation. We didn't get Hillary's views durring the election after
the "cookie" issue. If it was known before the election that she
would have such a position of power we had a right to judge her before
we voted, not after when there is not anything that we can do about
it. It is the same reason many oppose Sen. Packwood. The public
was decieved before the election. That is why I said what I did.
It is a matter of being up front and honest.
starbuck
Janice Kendall
ONWARD; THRU THE FOG! (TM)
- Oat Willie's (TM)
Where are the Prawns?
In article <X1cqyB...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com>
po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>
>limb...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Angela K. Isaacson) writes:
>
>> I seriously doubt that Hillary will do a good job!!! Who are you trying to
>> kid? All she is concerned about is her liberal self. As far as Billary
>> Clinton is concerned, he is about a joke!!!
>>
Big assertions. Evidence?
>
>The elections been over months ago and you're still bitter? Oh well,
>you'll just have to learn to live with it and not let it eat at your guts
>until yopu have to get on the net and spill pointless and insipid bile.
>Get a grip, kid!
>
>Pope Charles SubGenius Pope Of Houston. And the denizens of the
>White House for the last 12 years were competent? Heh heh!
Hey, Popie... I think you should get a grip yourself. If Barbara Bush had
been appointed to head a bunch of "Task Forces" and other governmental
matters, you would have been all over George.
Kind of hypothetical, don't you think? If Barbara Bush had been
running the Council on Competitiveness, instead of Dan Quayle, what
difference would it have made? It would still have had the purpose of
refusing to implement environmental laws, and that would have been
plenty of reason to criticize it. Who was running it is important to
some degree, but not because of who they're related to. Now, if a
president were to alter American foreign policy because of the
business interests of his brother, or his son, that would be
different, wouldn't it. Tell me about the Bush family interests in
China and among anti-Castro Cubans and the interesting coincidence
that "constructive engagement" is the favored policy relative to
China, but embargo, boycott, and overthrow are the main concepts when
it comes to Cuba.
Just like how you weenies
screamed about Nancy Reagan, even though she had *less* of a policy role than
Her Hillariness had.
I think it was not because of her power, but because she was an idiot,
that people, weenies and bratwursts alike, were disturbed.
Hey, whatever happened to the Anti-Nepotism Act? It was supposed to end crap
like this... And we thought JFK had real stones for appointing Bobby K. as
AG? Naw... Clinton has real chutzpah to be flagrantly violating that law like
this.
Hey, I thought you considered an excess of testosterone to be the
minimum requirement for an American president. Regarding nepotism and
the law, I think you missed something. I heard on the news that the
act only applies to paid positions. Also, is there anything about RFK
that made him a bad AG? Especially by Reagan-era standards?
One more thing, Your Holiness... How about dropping the "Denizens of the
White House For The Past 12 Years" line from your sig.? You probably forgot
that the ball's in *your* court now. Stop bitching about Reagan/Bush already.
Well, if only the lingering effects of those 12 years weren't still so
much with us, I'd be happy to forget all about it. Hey, you guys
still whine and complain about Jimmy Carter!
-- JC
Alison Colman
writes:
> [ deleted satire on the feminist agenda ]
>
> You missed the point only seeing the the last two sentences. When I
> asked if the PC ect ect were trying to put something over it was in
> reference to several articles including the one I quoted. The quotes
> in question refered to the playing down of Hillary Clinton's role.
> "Oh it ain't nothin, it is just suggesting". Many of us _do not_
> fear a woman in power.
I believe it. If it was Phyllis Schlafly instead of Hillary Rodham
Clinton, you'd be jumping for joy.
>What we do fear is the slickness of the Hillary
> situation.
I think you fear her left-of-center views.
>We didn't get Hillary's views durring the election after
> the "cookie" issue. If it was known before the election that she
> would have such a position of power we had a right to judge her before
> we voted, not after when there is not anything that we can do about
> it. It is the same reason many oppose Sen. Packwood. The public
> was decieved before the election. That is why I said what I did.
> It is a matter of being up front and honest.
>
> starbuck
Alison