Bush's cabinet selection
Cheri Alexander
I am surprised, no one has mentioned something about John Ashcroft being
selected as Bush's Atty. General. Not too long ago, it was said that the
only person more to the right of him is Jesse Helms.
I am worried about our lifestyle. The AG is in charge of the Justice
Department. The moderates that Bush selected to other posts will not have
any affect on nudism/naturism.
Not a happy time for nudists, IM(not so)HO
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
http://www.cybernude.com/Travelites
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/cheristravelites
Travelites, Inc. Nudist Club
PO Box 90836, Columbia, SC 29290
803/695-1937
Next events: 12/31 - New Years Eve Party - Ridgeway, SC
1/20 - Chinese New Year - Columbia, SC
1/27 - Tailgating party - Lancaster, SC
2/10 - Adopt-A-Highway cleanup & Valentine's wine & cheese-tasting
Gary J. Sibio
<cheri...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>I am surprised, no one has mentioned something about John Ashcroft being
>selected as Bush's Atty. General. Not too long ago, it was said that the
>only person more to the right of him is Jesse Helms.
>
>I am worried about our lifestyle. The AG is in charge of the Justice
>Department. The moderates that Bush selected to other posts will not have
>any affect on nudism/naturism.
>
>Not a happy time for nudists, IM(not so)HO
>
>Cheri
I know of no statements made by the President Elect or any of his
proposed cabinet that would indicate that they intend to take any of
our rights away. Unless you can show some cause for concern other than
the assumption that a Republican administration would be unfriendly
toward nudism, your comments sound like liberal propaganda. What
exactly has the current administration done to help?
Pax et bonum,
Gary J. Sibio, SFO
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Gary,
Gary J. Sibio <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<6dfm4t0udo97gpg5c...@4ax.com>...
It's more like, "What has ANY administration done to help?"
Gary, you need to look around -- the list of closed nude beaches and parks
would fill many screens. The more conservative the administration, the more
ground we lose.
Of course they're not going "to take any of our rights away." -- to make
statements like that wouldn't result in them being elected. But they're
going to 'protect' us from the 'evils' of nudity and if you don't think
that'll take our rights away, well then...
Scared Stiff,
C&B
osca...@my-deja.com
"Cheri Alexander" <cheri...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
[Message Snipped]
Happy New Year Cheri:
As a Nudist and a retired Federal Government employee during the
Clinton/Gore Administration, I can tell you that our country is in so
much better hands with an honest and forthright AG rather than a poor
excuse for an AG like we have had to endure these last 8 years. I too
am concerned that our rights to enjoy the out of doors without
hinderance of clothing will fall sway to people who are passionate to
the contrary; however, I do not see the Bush/Cheney Administration
being a problem. In fact, they will have their hands full trying to
get this country back on track as a moral and responsible society
again. I am not picking a political fight here, I am merely sharing my
views.
Oscar
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Joel Rosenthal
means is freedom for business. Whenever anyone does anything they don't
like, it doesn't matter how private and harmless, they go after it with
fury. Try to find a liberal who will use fake evidence as Congressman
Weldon did in Florida to close down a CO beach. You won't.
Naturist Couple
"Joel Rosenthal" <roj...@spire.com> wrote in message
news:92vng...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Ahem... Personal freedom is hardly a democratic tradition.
Mixing "Right wing Republicans" with new found moral leaders on a crusade is
just as fake as evidence don't you think?
Signed,
Right wing Republican, Life Member NRA, 100% Choice and all Naturist!
Phlip
Just be thankful nudism laws don't carry a death penalty...
--
Phlip
======= http://users.deltanet.com/~tegan/home.html =======
ba...@my-deja.com
Who is Congressman Weldon and what did he do to shut down the beach?
News has a way of getting lost in northwest Arizona!
Dean
In article <92vng...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
JStarkey9
years under "who else" the democrat liberals who know "what's best" for us.
look at all the areas we have lost in the last 8. Then name an area lost under
a Republican elected official.
joe
Jim
now nominated for a Cabinet position in the Bush administration.
"JStarkey9" <jsta...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010106112114...@ng-mj1.aol.com...
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Joe,
JStarkey9 <jsta...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010106112114...@ng-mj1.aol.com>...
> it seems to me that most of the ground we have lost has been in the last
8
> years under "who else" the democrat liberals who know "what's best" for
us.
> look at all the areas we have lost in the last 8.
Yes, lost lots of areas in that time.
> Then name an area lost under
> a Republican elected official.
That can be done, but as above, more seem to have been lost lately.
It's just that the specter of conservatism is alarming because to some
extent rabid nude loathing religionists helped elect them.
C&B
Phlip
You imply Democrats also twist human rights issues when they are in office,
and that we should not compare elected Republicans with "morality"
crusaders.
No governance expects its populations to cheerfully toe whatever line it
draws. All politics represents a tug-of-war between the needs of the
individual (starting with the need for freedom) and the needs of the State
(starting with the need for obedience).
Of course Democrats (with a capital D) preach and subvert freedom at the
same time, too. Try getting a zoning variance to build a walkable
neighborhood these days...
But the problem non-RWRs have when they see Republican followers eagerly
toeing the lines drawn by their leaders is they are so obviously responding
to the messenger, not the message. The rest of us simply don't see how
increasing corporate welfare can actually lead to smaller government & more
workers rights. The _latter_ are noble goals!
Naturist Couple
"Phlip" <phli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:937p4k$r...@dispatch.concentric.net...
I'm sorry I implied nothing of the sort about "human rights issues"...
Just that the DNC's "great society" direction doesn't tend to protect what
little individual freedoms we have now. Legislating safety, morality and
whatever else to get elected is a democratic tradition and the little guy
always loses unless there's another expensive government program to "save"
him. While everyone else gets stuck with the tab. (hey maybe their really
forcing us to go naked as we won't be able to afford clothes eh?)
Now to attempt to keep this on topic - Bush is hardly a Right Wing
Conservative and his cabinet appointments represent that. Getting upset
about the AG appointment's personality or religious beliefs is certainly
crying wolf over nude/naturist issues. As someone else pointed out I'd
rather have a pillar of society attempting to uphold legal issues and let
the courts make the final decision. Past precidence usually wins and current
practices are rarely changed.
Will some public beaches be closed? Only if *local* officials decide to.
Lumping Religous Right and Right Wing Republicans totally disregards what
the core beliefs are in the Republican party. Yes I disagree with some
issues but the politics of our democratic republic (via elected reps) tends
to weight public opinion quite heavily. Let if ride and you'll see the
positives.
Raymond J. Pask
Ashcroft's position has been on nudity/naturism. It seems with his many years
as senator, attorney general of Missouri and as governor of Missouri, at some
point or other he must have had opportunity to let his opinions be know about
this. Personally, there are other aspects of his ideology that I find
disturbing, but those are not for this discussion...
Yours in Peace and Unity,
Lapdog
--
"We don't own this place, though we act as if we did. It belongs to the
children of our childrens' kids...We can run, run, run, but we can't hide...Oh,
no we can't hide." -Barlow/Mydland
John D
crowd...but I was raised a Massachusetts liberal (who now bares all on
Calfornia's Black's Beach).
First, I would like to note that even my textile gay male friends agree
that if the country were run by gay men, all beaches and everything else
too would be clothing optional. (So let's elect Barney Frank as
President.)
As a gay man, I saw the Regan/Bush era as a period in which hard-won
civil rights were being reversed. A Supreme Court that says that states
may criminalize gay sex (Bowers v Hardwick) is not going to stand in the
way of states criminalizing nudity.
I see the Republicans as feeling that everyone has the right to live as
they -- the Republican Party -- sees fit. That means nothing that will
shock Middle America. No same sex couples, please. Absolutely no
abortions. And don't even think about going naked on that beach.
These all work out as a series of "it's my body" issues. It's my body: I
will love another man. It's her body: she may decide that an abortion is
appropriate. They are our bodies: we will each decide how much covering
they need.
I don't see the Republicans, with their love of the freedom to march in
lock-step with everyone else, approving of people splashing naked in the
surf. It seems so liberal!
Jaidit
A naked Massachusetts liberal with any tanline from that California sun
In article <20010106112114...@ng-mj1.aol.com>,
rg
fight. But anytime someone tells me they want to get this country back to
some morals...I keep hearing anti-nudity, anti-porn, anti-anything that the
religious right does not like.
Hope I am wrong.
ag
<osca...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92q4oa$4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Peter Dost
"rg" <jobb...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8Boa6.4307$1m.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Oscar, your post is interesting and like you, I am not trying to pick
a
> fight. But anytime someone tells me they want to get this country
back to
> some morals...I keep hearing anti-nudity, anti-porn, anti-anything
that the
> religious right does not like.
>
> Hope I am wrong.
In addition to this yesterday I heard, that your new president (I am
from Germany) wants to give religious groups more influence again. This
will be absolutely contraproductive in case of nudism!
In "back to more moralism" I guess the "back" is self-explaining.
Peter
who is happy to live in Europe
*Most of our imports come from outside*
Kathleen
>from Germany) wants to give religious groups more influence again. This
>will be absolutely contraproductive in case of nudism!
>In "back to more moralism" I guess the "back" is self-explaining.
>
>Peter
>who is happy to live in Europe
>
There are some that want to use religion for their own agendas. But I am a
Christian and am pro nudism as are most Christians I know.
Kathleen
"Counting My Blessings!"
Phlip
> There are some that want to use religion for their own agendas. But I am a
> Christian and am pro nudism as are most Christians I know.
Ah, but you are the "real" kind of Christian. Not the "evangelist born
again" kind who all want to use artificial guilt to manipulate people.
Nothing like pointing out "those nudists" to stimulate that artificial
guilt system!
--
Phlip phli...@my-deja.com
============ http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PhlIp ============
-- Keep the Deja Archive Alive!
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/ --
Peter Dost
"Kathleen" <okeef...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20010122215630...@ng-mh1.aol.com...
Well, when we visited Virginia in 1997 we tried to find a public steam
bath or Finnish bath, but we did not succeed. Our friends told us, this
had something to do with the wide influence of baptists (as far as I
know a christian group). I visited a video-store and was excited to find
"Ben Hur" from the 1950s under "erotic movies"!
Some people tried to run a bossom-free (hope it is correct) hotdog shop
there. They had to close it after one week or so after heavy
demonstrations from christian groups. I agree this has (almost) nothing
to do with nudism, but it was the same spirit we found everywhere.
We were told, that in Maryland oral sex even if married (together) is
forbidden by law! Everybody laughed about it and maybe there will be no
executions because of this deed, but it's not as funny as if there was
no law which rules the sexual relations with my wife.
We had a guest student from Germany with us in the kouse of our friends
and she told us, in high school a teacher told the class that in Europe
on every beach people run around naked and was very, very upset because
of this. She (the student) had to tell her teacher, that there are some
rules even in Europe and that it is not usual on every beach, even if
there are many nudist resorts and much nudist beaches.
Our impression was, that there was some "anti-sex" everywhere in the
air. When we arrived back in Europe we both were happy to see some
half-naked guys and girls in advertisemet again, even if we found it too
much before we went to the US.
These impressions were of course very subjective, but I tell you that we
felt (what belongs to nudity and sex) to be able to breathe much more
free back in Europe.
Peter
KEN KELLY
Being religious doesn't prevent one from being a naturist or force one to be
anti-naturist! I comfortably live a life that encompasses deep religious
belief, and I'm nude as often as I can be. I espouse the wonderful aspects
of social nudity while being an actively religious person. I leave the
nudist resorts on weekends that I am there to attend church services.
Sometimes, I'll pray as I sit poolside or in my room! There are some parks
that offer services on the premises.
Since organized social nudism attempts to set a tone of "Moralism" among its
devotees, the need is for education, not cowering from zealots.
The two can exist together. There is a minority who will not accept nudity
because of misguided teachings. But please don't proclaim from your faraway
haven that "This will be absolutely contraproductive in case of nudism."
Nothing can be derived from the election and inauguration of the new
president that leads to an "absolute" condition. Your statement is as
unfounded as the anti nudity zealots, who see evil in things that are merely
uncertain or unknown to them.
--
-Ken Kelly-
KEN...@prodigy.net
Peter Dost <Pe...@Peter-Dost.de> wrote in message
Tom Pitton
nudism as there are people. From my perspective, the problems start when a
person or group hides behind any dogma, religous or otherwise, in order to
advance a narrow and often distorted point of view. One day it's, "get the
nudists". The next day its, "get 'somebody' else". All done in the name of
some set of thoughts, ideas or beliefs. Creatively and often maddenly spun
in a circular and self serving fashion to prove what must be proven to
advance various and sundry agendas.
Tom
Apollo Beach, Canaveral National Seashore
Peter Dost
You are right to say "religion is not anti-nudism", but as you know
almost always the extreme minorities have the loudest voice and are
heard (see abortion, not only in the US). You are right to say cowering
from zealots is wrong and there is a need for education, but who has
more infuence? The people who are not shouting out "I want to have a
nudist camp" or the people who are shouting out "New moralism is
needed"?
I did not say, you shouldn't pray! In my opinion, everybody may be happy
with his/her religion or without if preferred.
>From my "faraway heaven" I can tell you, that for example in Italy where
the catholic church has much more to say than here, you will hardly find
nudist camps. There are 3 or so, but not as much as one could expect
looking at the number of Italiens. On the other hand in Croatia where
churches have much less influence, you find much nudist camps. The same
in Germany: eastern Germany with less church > more nudist beaches,
western Germany with mor church > less nudist beaches.
I did not want to offend you or other members of churches! I only tried
to say, that I am looking on the US and the new president with a little
concern in case of our interest, nudism.
Peter
"KEN KELLY" <KEN...@prodigy.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:94kb1t$1aji$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
Naturist Couple
"Peter Dost" <Pe...@Peter-Dost.de> wrote in message
> I did not want to offend you or other members of churches! I only tried
> to say, that I am looking on the US and the new president with a little
> concern in case of our interest, nudism.
OTOH some of us are glad sex and sleeze (which some mistakenly think go hand
in hand with nudism) are out of the public view... and the oval office.
Rojo
Rojo
"Peter Dost" <Pe...@Peter-Dost.de> wrote in message
news:94jbh2$d4qvu$1...@ID-41982.news.dfncis.de...
>
KEN KELLY
But my word was simple "haven," where you may feel safe from these d**n
Americans!! I have to live among them, a punishment I relish in return for
all the good things that form our way of life.
>8^)
--
-Ken Kelly-
KEN...@prodigy.net
Peter Dost <Pe...@Peter-Dost.de> wrote in message
news:94lv9c$e0571$1...@ID-41982.news.dfncis.de...
Allen
>Our friends told us, this
>had something to do with the wide influence of baptists (as far as I
>know a christian group)
No, it has to do with economics. There is not enough support for this to
outweigh the downside. Yes, Baptist is a group of Christian.
>I visited a video-store and was excited to find
>"Ben Hur" from the 1950s under "erotic movies"!
I have lived in Va most of my life. I have been in many video stores, here.
Never seen Ben Hur in Erotic Movies section. Sure you were'nt dreaming?
>Some people tried to run a bossom-free (hope it is correct) hotdog shop
>there.
Are you sure that you are not talking about the Tempo Room? They were a topless
place that closed for lack of business. The owners went on to open the
Riverside that is still open. >Some people tried to run a bossom-free (hope it
is correct) hotdog shop
>there.
>We were told, that in Maryland oral sex even if married (together) is
>forbidden by law!
It may be in Maryland, but it is a law in Va. It was challenged in court in
the 60's, but the court refused to hear it because no one had ever been charged
with this offense not related to some other charge, such as forcible rape.
Essentially, this capped the Attorney General's office from using this as a
chargable offense.
>Our impression was, that there was some "anti-sex" everywhere in the
>air
It is a shame that you did not get to see the true Virginia. Most people miss
the beauty of Virginia, its people and landscape.
Just a thought.........Allen
Jim
"Rojo" <roj...@spire.com> wrote in message
news:94o1c...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Tom Pitton
"Jim Kirtley" <kir...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3A7F54BB...@rcn.com...
> Agreed. Just what did Janet Reno do for us?
>
Please allow me to rephrase your question. What did Janet Reno do that
could have caused us grief? Answer: She didn't do anything to cause us
grief. What I and others are concerned about is the possibility that the
ultra right conservative agenda now has a standard bearer and that
standard bearer is in an high official position and well positioned to
cause us much grief. Time will tell....
Naturally,
Tom
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Jim,
Jim Kirtley <kir...@rcn.com> wrote in article
<3A7F5608...@rcn.com>...
> Gee. I remember going to Moonstone during the Reagen administration.
Moonstone is still closed, ain't?
C&B
>
> El Dorado Hot Spring wrote:
> >
> > Dear Gary,
> >
> > Gary J. Sibio <gary...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> > <6dfm4t0udo97gpg5c...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 16:41:34 GMT, "Cheri Alexander"
> > > <cheri...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I am surprised, no one has mentioned something about John Ashcroft
being
> > > >selected as Bush's Atty. General. Not too long ago, it was said
that
> > the
> > > >only person more to the right of him is Jesse Helms.
> > > >
> > > >I am worried about our lifestyle. The AG is in charge of the
Justice
> > > >Department. The moderates that Bush selected to other posts will
not
> > have
> > > >any affect on nudism/naturism.
> > > >
> > > >Not a happy time for nudists, IM(not so)HO
> > > >
> > > >Cheri
> > >
> > > I know of no statements made by the President Elect or any of his
> > > proposed cabinet that would indicate that they intend to take any of
> > > our rights away. Unless you can show some cause for concern other
than
> > > the assumption that a Republican administration would be unfriendly
> > > toward nudism, your comments sound like liberal propaganda. What
> > > exactly has the current administration done to help?
> >
> > It's more like, "What has ANY administration done to help?"
> >
> > Gary, you need to look around -- the list of closed nude beaches and
parks
> > would fill many screens. The more conservative the administration, the
more
> > ground we lose.
> >
> > Of course they're not going "to take any of our rights away." -- to
make
> > statements like that wouldn't result in them being elected. But they're
> > going to 'protect' us from the 'evils' of nudity and if you don't think
> > that'll take our rights away, well then...
> >
> > Scared Stiff,
> > C&B
>
Rob
virtually everything. Do you think it is any coincidence that this big
report on sex on television (of course, it finds there is way too much
of it!) is releases just weeks after Bush is selected president? Get
with it people! Do not become complacent! The assault on your personal
liberties is only just beginning. We are in for a dark few years. Keep
your clothes handy. - Rob
Jim
impose.
He comes with HEAVY baggage as does dubya.
"El Dorado Hot Spring" <HotS...@El-Dorado.com> wrote in message
news:01c09194$b77a3240$b41cd440@camilla-bill...
Allen
>What I and others are concerned about is the possibility that the
>ultra right conservative agenda now has a standard bearer and that
>standard bearer is in an high official position and well positioned to
>cause us much grief. Time will tell...
The problem with this is that you are setting yourself in a self fulfilling
position of failure. Even if he does nothing, like Reno, he has not helped us a
bit. Start out with Ashcroft has spent many uears working in the political
arena, knows the ropes, and has the ability to help our cause if properly
motivated. Now, from there, you can see we have the ability to help ourselves.
We just need to find out what would motivate him to help us and work towards
that end. It takes a plan and a playbook. But, as far as I can see, no one
wants to pursue this.
Just a thought.........Allen
Jim
record of public service.
It is, however, a record of representing the Religious Right, a well known
opponent of nudism.
If you choose to be nude, do it.
If you choose not to be nude, do it.
Let's not have John Ashcroft make the decision for either of us.
"Allen" <topf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010210165400...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> Start out with Ashcroft has spent many uears working in the political
> arena, Allen
Allen
>It is, however, a record of representing the Religious Right, a well known
>opponent of nudism.
>
I have seen no evidence that the RR is our opponent. I have seen people from
both sides of the fence screaming at us. And I have seen help from bith sides
of the fence.
Ashcroft is in a great place to further our cause if someone would only reach
out to him and place our lifestyle before him in a manner that is both truthful
and devoid of the stereotypes. Look at what an asset he would be for us.
1) He is in the Justice DEpartment.
2) He has the ear of the PResident, Congress, the press, and as it happens, the
conservative christians.
3) He has made no statements either way on nudism, so probably has no
preconceived notions to quill.
Wouldn't it be great if we could get Ashcroft to come out for us?
Just a thought.........Allen
David Hecht
Allen wrote:
> Wouldn't it be great if we could get Ashcroft to come out for us?
> Just a thought.........Allen
And, in other news:
Pigs fly
Hell freezes over
Cubs beat Yankees
First gay pope
cuddly Ayatollah Khomeini dolls a big seller
dogs and cats living together --- mass hysteria!
Tom Pitton
>
> I have seen no evidence that the RR is our opponent. I have seen
people from
> both sides of the fence screaming at us. And I have seen help from
bith sides
> of the fence.
>
now that the right is sitting in the drivers seat in Washington. About
five years ago the RR pledged to enact anti-nudity legislation in at
least one thousand governmental venues by the years 2000. They were good
to their word and they reached their stated goal. Family Oriented Nudism
is now under attack or is outright banned in more locales than in
anytime that I can remember in my 35 years as a Naturist. Finally, my
files are over two feet thick just with my personal battles with the RR
over the past 7 years.
In conclusion may I say this. To those that would defend the RR: you
are talking to the wrong parties. You should be taking your
pronouncements to the RR and THEN coming back here with the positive
results that you have garnered on our behalf through your contacts with
your buddies in the RR. The RR has made it personally clear to me on
several occasions (verbally) that I am their avowed enemy and they would
like to see nothing more than to have me drop off the face of the earth.
I think the time has come for the Nudist inclined defenders of the RR to
become the primary defenders of Nudism/Naturism, don't you think?
Naturally,
Tom
Mark
say in the nudism arena....Most laws are at the state and local levels and
most debates have taken place there as well. As far as Bush goes, he lived
a stones throw from Hippie Hollow and even kept his boat on Lake Travis and
I never heard him make any type of remark about it. Texas politics
generally has a libertarian twist to it anyway and Bush seemed to embrace
some of those concepts.
Allen
>
>Pigs fly
>Hell freezes over
snipped for brevity....
So where is there any evidence that Ashcroft isn't behind us now? Where is the
mass of problems he is supposed to be sending our way?
As I have said, you are creating your own problems. If you wish to have a
problem, just keep up doing what you are now, instead of contacting them and
putting forth the information that says nudism is a benefit and socially a good
idea.
Or the other thing that you can do is sit back and watch both liberal and
conservatives whittle away at nudism.
>dogs and cats living together --- mass hysteria!
>
I still can't eat Stay Puff Marshmellows...
Just a thought.........Allen
Allen
>bout
>five years ago the RR pledged to enact anti-nudity legislation in at
>least one thousand governmental venues by the years 2000. They were good
>to their word and they reached their stated goal
Really? Name ten. Name ten laws enacted that were sponsored by and passed by
riligious right without the help of the moderates and liberals.
I think that what you are refering to is the Christian Coalition's campaign
against Pornography, in which they pledged to enact 1000 laws against
pornography. In their own count they missed by half.
>Finally, my
>files are over two feet thick just with my personal battles with the RR
>over the past 7 years.
Could be, but it might be helpful to find out who is your enemy, and who you
made an enemy of by assuming that they would attack you.
>earth.
>I think the time has come for the Nudist inclined defenders of the RR to
>become the primary defenders of Nudism/Naturism, don't you think?
No, I think that it is time that nudists, whatever their social leanings are,
promote and inform others about the benefits and social advantages to nudism,
whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative. This social bashing is
neither helpful or healthy to nudism. You are only giving them amunition. As
for talking with conservatives, tht is easy. Go to any nudist resort and they
will be the majority. R R, you've got just as many, per centage wise, in nudism
as you do in the general population. You are tilting at windmills when you
argue that the RR is the problem with acceptance. They are wat too small to
effect us. It is all of the them. We have done a poor job. Don't blame it on
them.
Just a thought.........Allen
Richard Kenner
>So where is there any evidence that Ashcroft isn't behind us now? Where is the
>mass of problems he is supposed to be sending our way?
It's just a wee bit early to start seeing any policy changes of that nature:
we have almost four more years.
And don't forget that politics is subtle: we're probably not going to see
some single major change, just a lot of shifts on small ones. My major
concern is NPS. The Attorney General's impact there is not a direct one, but
he's involved in the giving of legal opinions and suggestions.
The NPS has been trying to formulate policies about nude use of parks
and national seashores for a long time now. Nothing much has happened
with that process recently so we tend to forget it's ongoing.
That process involves some legal issues, especially given the pending
litigation regarding CNS. So it's reasonable to think the AJ will get
involved. Given his background, do you expect he'll be sympathetic to us
or against us?
When things happen, we're not going to be able to point to Ashcroft or any
other individual as the source of the problem, but just have our suspicions.
I don't think it's fair to say "Ashcroft will close all the nude beaches
tomorrow", but it's also not realistic to think that he'll be on our side
when these issues come to his desk.
Allen
>t's just a wee bit early to start seeing any policy changes of that nature:
>we have almost four more years.
As I have been trying say, its just a wee bit early to start claiming Ashcroft
will do anything that will affect us.
snipped for brevity....
>The NPS has been trying to formulate policies about nude use of parks
>and national seashores for a long time now.
It is my understanding that the plan would incorporate areas set aside for nude
use. Is this not correct?
>That process involves some legal issues, especially given the pending
>litigation regarding CNS. So it's reasonable to think the AJ will get
>involved. Given his background, do you expect he'll be sympathetic to us
>or against us?
I don't expect he do either. We have no indication that Ashcroft has an opinion
on this subject. Given his background, I would rather think that he would
listen to both sides than I would think that he would push an issue through
because someone else thought it a good idea. Here lies the problem. Who is
supposed to call up and say, "This is what nudism is about." ? Who is going to
do it?
For certain, the minority of people against nudity are going to make the
calls. If Ashcroft only hears one side, you know which way he will go. You
would do the same, especially if the non-vocal side just sits around and
complains.
The problem at that point is that there will be lots of people on ANM screaming
that Ashcroft knifed us in the back.
>When things happen, we're not going to be able to point to Ashcroft or any
>other individual as the source of the problem, but just have our suspicions.
It will be our own faults.... mine included
>I don't think it's fair to say "Ashcroft will close all the nude beaches
>tomorrow", but it's also not realistic to think that he'll be on our side
>when these issues come to his desk.
>
I think that it is realistic to think that Ashcroft can be on our side. As far
as I can tell, no one has placed before usa any credible reason to assume that
Ashcroft is against us. I don't even think that he knows anything about nudism.
If we lose this, it is our own fault.
Just a thought.........Allen
Richard Kenner
>>The NPS has been trying to formulate policies about nude use of parks
>>and national seashores for a long time now.
>
>It is my understanding that the plan would incorporate areas set aside for
>nude use. Is this not correct?
Since there is no "plan" at the moment, your understanding is incorrect.
So far the NPS has had a policy *not* to set aside such areas. There have
been some within the NPS advocate doing so and some that advocate banning
all nude use. This is what the policy discussion would be about.
>Given his background, I would rather think that he would
>listen to both sides than I would think that he would push an issue through
>because someone else thought it a good idea.
It's my understanding that he sides with the RRR on most issues.
>Who is supposed to call up and say, "This is what nudism is about." ? Who
>is going to do it?
That's not exactly the way governmental policy works ...
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Mark,
Mark <nocm...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<t8j8gsl...@corp.supernews.com>...
Is that why children have been banned from Hippie Hollow for six years and
all (expen$ive) attempts to correct the situation have, to date, failed?
Wondering,
C&B
Allen
>Since there is no "plan" at the moment, your understanding is incorrect.
>So far the NPS has had a policy *not* to set aside such areas. There have
>been some within the NPS advocate doing so and some that advocate banning
>all nude use
This is not my understanding.
>This is what the policy discussion would be about.
No, the discussion is about finding a way to satisfy both sides.
>It's my understanding that he sides with the RRR on most issues.
Its funny, I side with the conservatives on most issues. No one is trying to
say that I would stop nudism if I could. And most does not mean all. My
arguement still holds true.
>>Who is supposed to call up and say, "This is what nudism is about." ? Who
>>is going to do it?
>
>That's not exactly the way governmental policy works ...
That is exactly how government works. They have a staff that does nothing but
handle comments on policy. BTW, his policy will come from the administration.
He will have input, but policy will come from George W.
This is the exact problem that I am complaining about. No one is willing to
call up the government and express their opinion. Well, no no one, but very
few.
Now who is willing? I emailed. And got a response. Their response was that
nudism is such as small priority that there is no need to address it with an
official policy.
THat translates to we are doing a very poor job of communicating our message.
Just a thought.........Allen
Bowzwowzer
don't want to see your naked ass than those that do??? I couldn't care less
what you do in your own home, backyard or area that you rent, buy etc.. but
this country belongs to all of us... and that means we have a right NOT to see
what we don't want to see in a public place.
AnothrMark
Why does your 'right' not to see my 'naked ass' trump my rights?
The problem is that most of us have trouble doing what we like in our own
homes, backyards, and private clubs, much less public beaches and national
parks.
This was made crystal clear to me yesterday.
I was raided by the police for sunbathing in my backyard. My yard is PRIVATE.
It was a warm sunny day, even though well out of the usual sunbathing season, I
jumped at the chance to readjust from the winter Seasonal Affective Disorder
making so many of my fellow midwesterners February basket cases. I was in a
secluded area where I could only be seen from my own property, or from a single
window from the vacant house next door. Unfortunately some neighbor children
saw me sunning when they trespassed through my property. They called 911...
2 police units and a firetruck came to my house. They were expecting to find
some 'naked guy passed out or dead' in the back yard. The officer was very
angry with me, not with the trespassers who jumped to conclusions without
taking a second look or speaking to me before their panicked false alarm. He
ordered me to cover up, and to keep in mind that there are kids around for
God's sake (who could see me when trespassing).
Here's the clincher: I wasn't nude. I was wearing a nice skimpy brazil back
bathing suit with string sides. Just the thing for non-nude sunning. The
officer made me stand up, turn around. 'What the hell is that!'. 'my suit'.
'No it's not, it's underwear! Put on some shorts!'
You can't blame the police for their response to a bogus 911 report. But here
was an officer who felt entirely justified in lecturing me about appropriate
clothing worn in my own secluded private back yard. Does anyone doubt what
would have happened had I been sunning nude?
Mark
Phlip
So does someone have the right to demand not to see, oh, black-colored skin
in a public place?
--
Phlip phli...@my-deja.com
============== http://phlip.webjump.com ==============
-- "Probably one of the toughest times in anyone's life is when
you have to kill someone you love because they'r the Devil"
--Emo Phillips --
KEN KELLY
We're not telling them they have to look - or even to BE where we are. We
just want to be left alone to do it our way in places where we find mutual
respect.
--
-Ken Kelly-
KEN...@prodigy.net
Bowzwowzer <bowzw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010219175238...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
KEN KELLY
aware of the things you don't see. People ARE going to legislators and local
officials - you just haven't been there.
Here's a repost of a Jan. 30th article:
"Today, at the Florida Legislative Delegation meeting, the idea of
preserving
nude beaches was presented to a group of elected officials sitting in front
of an assembled crowd. Most of the other presenters came with dollar signs
in their eyes, wanting legislation that would pay money to some "need" or
other. Some wanted protection of law against exhorbitant insurance rates for
liability and negligence. They wanted to cap losses and reduce premiums for
businesses that had no loss experience..
"The opening remarks by the Florida Naturists representative, Richard Mason,
got the attention of the people by making it a fun thing! The comment was
that they'd been listening to requests from people who had no suits against
them. Now here was someone who had "no suits" and wanted them to leave it
that way - without costing the public any money. Got their attention,
lightened the meeting and everyone in the room took on a different attitude.
They became interested in the fine package that had been presented to each
official. [16 in the delegation] They saw that there was nothing furtive or
dirty about the beach at Haulover. They learned of a cash generator through
parking and useage fees. They were impressed with the candor of the
presentation.
"By making safe, accessible and acceptable places for social nudity, it
becomes a "Field of Dreams" thing - build it and they will come!""
This is only one facet of the gem of communication! Tune in to the Naturist
Action Committee and to other nude recreational groups who are constantly in
touch with lawmakers and enforcement officials. If you're thinking no one is
pro-active, you're probably seeing only your own image.
Get hold of the booklet "Naturists, Upholders of Strong Family Values"
(second Ed. 2001) by/from Paul LaValley of the Tallahassee Bare Devils, and
get it in front of your legislators. It will teach them about naturists.
-Ken Kelly-
KEN...@prodigy.net
Allen <topf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010219141348...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
Rojo
"Bowzwowzer" <bowzw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010219175238...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Bow Wowz,
Bowzwowzer <bowzw...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20010219175238...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
Yes, this country belongs to all of us.
There are more people who'd rather not see dune buggies in the desert than
those that do, yet there are designated areas for that.
There are more people who'd rather not be near endless pistol, rifle, and
shotgun fire than those that would be, yet there are many millions of acres
where it's perfectly legal.
There are more people who'd rather not see thousands of shell casings left
on the ground than those that would, yet those shell casings are there.
Does that mean the people who are doing those things are assholes?
God made us unto His image and He was pleased with what He saw; He made us
naked, so He was naked too. There's nothing wrong with being naked. It's
also legal on millions of acres of public land.
Yes, this country belongs to all of us and there's room for everyone to do
legal things.
In Chaste Naturism,
El Dorado Hot Spring, A Million Miles From Monday...
Camilla Van Sickle & Bill Pennington
POB 10, Tonopah, Arizona 85354
623-386-5412
HotS...@El-Dorado.com
http://www.el-dorado.com
John McCallum
Since you put it that way, as a nudist, I would prefer not to see you,
or anyone else, flaunting their sexuality by wearing brief swimsuits
that reveal more than they cover. You might find my naked ass offensive,
but I find brief swimsuits far more offensive than naked flesh.
--
John McCallum
email: mcca...@unite.com.au
DTE Director and member Melbourne PC User Group
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear John,
> Since you put it that way, as a nudist, I would prefer not to see you,
> or anyone else, flaunting their sexuality by wearing brief swimsuits
> that reveal more than they cover. You might find my naked ass offensive,
> but I find brief swimsuits far more offensive than naked flesh.
Right on. This is an important point. We've believed for a long time that
clothing can be far more provocative and offensive than simple nudity.
C&B
Jr...@nh.ultranet.com
Spring" <HotS...@El-Dorado.com> wrote:
Damn! Does that mean you're asking me to give up my codpiece? ;-)
-JR
El Dorado Hot Spring
Dear Jim
Jim Haynes <hay...@alumni.uark.edu> wrote in article
<9N9s6.14304$6p5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >>> or anyone else, flaunting their sexuality by wearing brief swimsuits
> >>> that reveal more than they cover. You might find my naked ass
offensive,
> >>> but I find brief swimsuits far more offensive than naked flesh.
> >>
> >>Right on. This is an important point. We've believed for a long time
that
> >>clothing can be far more provocative and offensive than simple nudity.
> >>
> I'd rather we didn't start this game of "I can be more offended by what
you
> do than you are offended by what I do.
We agree. We don't to start that either. What we meant was that if one's
mind is wholesome, pure, chaste, deity-like (etc), then simple nudity or
any type of clothing isn't provocative at all whereas clothing (designed by
men for the purpose of drawing attention to the 'sexual' parts of a woman,
and with no thought of the woman's comfort in mind) can be more provocative
than nudity to certain other minds.
Personally we prefer the birthday suit because it never goes out of style.
And to quote an old acquaintance, "If being nude feels so free, then
clothes must be a prison."
In Chaste Naturism,
C&B
Jim Haynes
>>> that reveal more than they cover. You might find my naked ass offensive,
>>> but I find brief swimsuits far more offensive than naked flesh.
>>
>>Right on. This is an important point. We've believed for a long time that
>>clothing can be far more provocative and offensive than simple nudity.
>>
Bert Clanton
Jim Haynes <hay...@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
All this assumes that experiencing sexual arousal is somehow shameful,
and that a mode of dress that provokes sexual arousal is somehow
immoral.
We human beings are not animals. We are able to *choose* how we deal
with feelings of sexual arousal. Probably most often, the most
appropriate response is not to initiate a sexual engagement, as when
one is in a social environment in which sexual engagement would be
inappropriate or offensive. But I have to say that my own long life
would have been rather colorless if I had avoided every opportunity for
sexual arousal.
But then I would describe myself as having "graduated" from organized
nudism.
Best wishes,
Bert
Dan Cohen
Body acceptance works two ways:
When I was growing up, I realized that my body was my body, so I
accepted it. I learned how to live with it as it is. That's self-esteem.
Now that I'm grown up, I notice that other people have their own bodies,
too. I benefits nobody when we judge others, but it pays off when we
accept others as they are. That's tolerance.
BTW, what did the boy garden slug say to the girl garden slug as she
squirmed by? "Hi, cutie!"
-- Dan Cohen in Calgary