The Handmaids Tale-How far are we?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

daniel patrick duffy

unread,
Dec 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/30/98
to Cordelia
Cordelia wrote:
>
> AERISS wrote:
> >
> > For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
> > clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state? With the
> > sexual inquisition beginning ie The President, Congressmen,
> > Republicans, Larry Flint etc. How long until it seeps into the common
> > people and is required before you can get a job . I know this is a
> > little off subject from the book but it certainly carries the same
> > theme and when I watch the news about these things I can't help but
> > shiver at the thought. So I'm just looking for some opinions on this
> > matter or perhaps just some reassurances.
> >
> > Aeriss
> > --
> > Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
> > http://www.talkway.com
>
> I don't think we're heading down the Handmaid's Tale's road at all: if
> IIRC, in THT, groups of right-wing religious extremists grab control of
> society in order to (among other things) control women's
> reproduction/fertility, and use all the worn-out myths and cliches about
> "bad" women deserving to lose all freedom in order to keep women in
> line. While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
> the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
> political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
> at a coup d'etat. (not that the religious right would turn down the
> opportunity for a coup; just that they don't seem to be the driving
> force this time). In THT we're talking women being kidnapped and
> enslaved for rich people to have babies; with Clinton we're talking one
> man's incredible stupidity and inability to keep his pants zipped
> providing political fodder for his opponents.
> --
> ÿWPC“

Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
hard to take NOW seriously after this.

AERISS

unread,
Dec 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/31/98
to

Morgan E. Smith

unread,
Dec 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/31/98
to
Actually, Atwood's own take on this has more to do with the
computerization of the economy than with the fundamentalist/patriarchy
part. She wrote the book when the religious right was in ascendancy, and
she came out of an era of great concern for the environment, so those
elements were the ones she chose to represent in the book, but her real
premise was based on the fact that as we computerize more and more, the
risk that some group, right or left, might be able to gain power and
essentially delete all its opponents from the field by the simple
expedient of electronically heisting their resources, escalates. This is
the part of the book that wasn't represented in the film version at all,
and was missed by many readers. Coupled with some kind of ecological
destruction, a group essentially captured the system, and then exorcised
all the undesirable elements, turning them into slave labour and
unpersons.

Morgan Smith


Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Dec 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/31/98
to
daniel patrick duffy wrote:
>
> Cordelia wrote:

> > I don't think we're heading down the Handmaid's Tale's road at all: if
> > IIRC, in THT, groups of right-wing religious extremists grab control of
> > society in order to (among other things) control women's
> > reproduction/fertility, and use all the worn-out myths and cliches about
> > "bad" women deserving to lose all freedom in order to keep women in
> > line. While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
> > the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
> > political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
> > at a coup d'etat. (not that the religious right would turn down the
> > opportunity for a coup; just that they don't seem to be the driving
> > force this time). In THT we're talking women being kidnapped and
> > enslaved for rich people to have babies; with Clinton we're talking one
> > man's incredible stupidity and inability to keep his pants zipped
> > providing political fodder for his opponents.
> > --
> > ÿWPC“
>
> Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
> supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
> Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
> hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
> hard to take NOW seriously after this.

Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
while the evidence against Thomas was rather shaky and he was
confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court--by a Democrat-controlled
Senate. Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a
Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
_consensual_ sex and lied about it. The singular, solitary case of
anyone claiming he committed sexual harassment was Paula Jones--and
she had an even weaker case than Anita Hill, and it was thrown out on
the grounds that even if she could prove that everything she said was
true, it wasn't sexual harassment. The lack of feminist outrage at
Clinton is because he hasn't done the things that Packwood did and
Thomas was accused of, and his policies are much better for working
women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.

Lis Carey

J. Brad Hicks

unread,
Dec 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/31/98
to
One thing to remember about Atwood's _The Handmaid's Tale_ is that, as she
used to point out in interviews, it =isn't fiction=. It's barely
=exaggeration.= In interviews, Margaret Atwood would insist that every form
of oppression of women that is in _The Handmaid's Tale_ has been used in
some society at some point in history. Most of them are in use somewhere in
the world right now. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran come to mind.)

OTOH, it looks to me like things are getting =better=, not worse. Thank the
Gods that George Bush's economic problems put an end to the credibility of
the whole "family values"/"national security" alliance that put Reagan and
Bush into office. That, as I recall, is the backstory behind _The
Handmaid's Tale_. The narrator's owner isn't one of the religious leaders,
even if he is married to a woman who's a conflation of Phyllis Schlafly and
Tammy Fae Bakker. The husband/owner is one of the CIA/NSA goons behind the
coup. Between the end of the Cold War and the revelations about how parts
of the Cold War were conducted, I don't see another CIA director getting
elected president of the USA any time soon, and after Bush pretty much blew
them off while in office, I don't see the Religious Right putting their
faith in such a candidate either.

In no small part, the whole "Family Values" trip of the 80s was an attempt
to do to feminism what the "return to normalcy" propaganda campaign of the
1950s did to the liberation that women had experienced during WWII.
Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), it didn't work
nearly as well on an increasingly post-modern, media-savvy audience as it
did during the "Leave it to Beaver"/"Father Knows Best" era.

--

J. Brad Hicks
U.S. Shamanics & Mechanical Zen
mailto:in...@us-shamanics.com
http://www.us-shamanics.com


daniel patrick duffy

unread,
Dec 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/31/98
to Elisabeth Carey
Elisabeth Carey wrote:
>
> daniel patrick duffy wrote:
> >
> > Cordelia wrote:
>
> > > I don't think we're heading down the Handmaid's Tale's road at all: if
> > > IIRC, in THT, groups of right-wing religious extremists grab control of
> > > society in order to (among other things) control women's
> > > reproduction/fertility, and use all the worn-out myths and cliches about
> > > "bad" women deserving to lose all freedom in order to keep women in
> > > line. While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
> > > the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
> > > political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
> > > at a coup d'etat. (not that the religious right would turn down the
> > > opportunity for a coup; just that they don't seem to be the driving
> > > force this time). In THT we're talking women being kidnapped and
> > > enslaved for rich people to have babies; with Clinton we're talking one
> > > man's incredible stupidity and inability to keep his pants zipped
> > > providing political fodder for his opponents.
> > > --
> > > ÿWPC“
> >
> > Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
> > supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
> > Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
> > hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
> > hard to take NOW seriously after this.
>

As a one of the rarest of political creatures now days, a _moderate_
Republican I thank you for the opportunity to respond...

> Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
> Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
> Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,

Yeah, Packwood was a slime ball, as is the man in the White House. As I
understand Holy Feminist Writ, there is no such thing as consentual sex
between a man have overwhelming political, financial, or career power
over over his partner. Which oddly enough is also why the military
expressly forbids any kind of socializing between officers and
enlisted. If Clinton, our Commander-in-Chief, was actually an officer
in the military he would be rightfully cashiered for what he has done.
If he was CEO of a corporation, the stockholders would have have is
head, if only to minimize the risk of an embarrassing law suit.

> while the evidence against Thomas was rather shaky and he was
> confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court--by a Democrat-controlled
> Senate.

Actually, the evidence against Thomas was practically non existent, and
never would have been allowed in a true court of law.

> Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a
> Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
> _consensual_ sex and lied about it.

Actualy, he is being impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice,
witness tampering specifically. Now, which party controls the house can
be viewed one of two ways. The Republicans are out to get him as a
symbol of everything they despise about the liberal, draft dodging 60s,
or a hypothetical Democratic contolled house would have swept this all
under the rug.

> The singular, solitary case of
> anyone claiming he committed sexual harassment was Paula Jones--and
> she had an even weaker case than Anita Hill, and it was thrown out on
> the grounds that even if she could prove that everything she said was
> true, it wasn't sexual harassment.

Both cases were weak on evidence, he said-she said. But after the "I
did not have sex with that woman" - followed by the blue dress with the
semen stains, I would tend to believe Paula. Of the two potential
victims, it is Paula who has the larger grievence having been exposed to
the man's genitals in a situation where he made it clear that her career
would be greatly helped if she had sex with him, vs. lewd and crude
jokes about pubic hairs on coke cans and well endowed porn stars.

> The lack of feminist outrage at
> Clinton is because he hasn't done the things that Packwood did and
> Thomas was accused of,

He's done as bad or worse (see above)

> and his policies are much better for working
> women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
> never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
> infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
> those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.

My point exactly. Feminists are willing to hypocritically look the other
way because of his policies, which is just fine - that's what politics
are all about. Just don't let them come back after this is done spouting
nonsense about how good, pure and noble their cause is when they're
really just another power group playing the game. And there are a great
many prominent Feminists (who actually believe that the ideals of
Feminism are more important than political tactics) who are extremely
uncomfortable with the NOW party line on this issue.

>
> Lis Carey

As a moderate Republican, I'm not one of those who stay awake at night
worrying that Clinton is going to destroy the Republic. I honestly
can't figure out what it is about this guy that sets off my brothers
(and sisters) on the far right. You would think, given his legistlative
record on welfore reform and balancing the budget, that conservatives
would love this man.

Not since Nixon (yes I am that old) have I seen a politician that
provoked such a visceral hatred. And you would think that Nixon's
policies towards China, arms control, creation of the EPA, etc. would
have made him beloved of liberals.

Best of wishes for the new year,

Dan Duffy

Cordelia

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to

DN736

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to
>of oppression of women that is in _The Handmaid's Tale_ has been used in
>some society at some point in history. Most of them are in use somewhere in
>the world right now. (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran come to mind.)

Agreed, the Taliban of Afghanistan come to mind they are a conservative's
dream. I have always wondered why the prominent conservative women in the
country like Dr. Laura, Schlafly, Charen ect don't practice what they preach,
why don't they stay in the home and keep their mouths shut
instead of being in the public eye giving opinions on national issues. A true
traditional woman should not have any opinions let alone give them on any topic
other than home and family, as the bible says "the head of a woman is a man".
Conservative woman believe this, the should practice it and stay in the home
taking care of their husbands where they belong, any thing else is blatant
hypocrisy.


Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to
AERISS wrote:
>
> For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
> clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state?

Pretty far.

> With the
> sexual inquisition beginning ie The President, Congressmen,
> Republicans, Larry Flint etc. How long until it seeps into the common
> people and is required before you can get a job.

I'm not sure what elected officials getting caught in sex scandals --
hardly a new development -- has to do with job requirements for ordinary
people. As far as I know, it's currently illegal for a prospective
employer to inquire about your marital status, much less ask whether
you're an adulterer. Politicians are a special case, because they're
public figures, and because CNN needs *something* to put on the air,
even when there's no real news happening.

-- M. Ruff

MLeach4706

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to
>AERISS wrote:
>>
>> For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
>> clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state? With the

>> sexual inquisition beginning ie The President, Congressmen,
>> Republicans, Larry Flint etc. How long until it seeps into the common
>> people and is required before you can get a job . I know this is a
>> little off subject from the book but it certainly carries the same
>> theme and when I watch the news about these things I can't help but
>> shiver at the thought. So I'm just looking for some opinions on this
>> matter or perhaps just some reassurances.
>>

I've wondered about this myself. I mean with
the new Republican Speaker Elect resigning because details of his salacious
affairs were about the be released by Larry Flint. This was, I think, a
clearly calculated ploy to get Bill Clinton to resign by setting an example and
I'm glad to see it did not work. After all who knows how far this nonsense will
go?

>While there's no question that conservatives are trying to make
>the most of Clinton's slimy private life, it looks a lot more like
>political opportunism on their part than a concerted religious attempt
>at a coup d'etat.

No but because so much of their arguments is based on moral "purity," or is it
probity?, anyway this could snowball. Maybe it should for a while so that the
average conservative can come to the realization that a spotless sexuality and
performance in public office do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Mariane Desautels

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to
daniel patrick duffy wrote:
>
> Elisabeth Carey wrote:
> >
> > daniel patrick duffy wrote:
> > > Yet I wonder if Feminists haven't completely discredited themselves by
> > > supporting a guy who makes Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas look like
> > > Alan Alda. Has there outraged been drowned in a sea of expedianecy and
> > > hypocrisy or are only Republicans worthy of their rath? It really is
> > > hard to take NOW seriously after this.

What about the OTHER feminists?

>
> As a one of the rarest of political creatures now days, a _moderate_
> Republican I thank you for the opportunity to respond...
>
> > Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
> > Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
> > Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
>
> Yeah, Packwood was a slime ball, as is the man in the White House. As I
> understand Holy Feminist Writ,

What Holy Feminist Writ? :-D

There's treading on shaky premises, and then there's walking on water.

> there is no such thing as consentual sex
> between a man have overwhelming political, financial, or career power
> over over his partner.

Right. So, what about Hil(l?)ary? Is that, if that is still part of the
equation, consensual? :-)

<snip>


> > Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a
> > Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
> > _consensual_ sex and lied about it.
>
> Actualy, he is being impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice,
> witness tampering specifically. Now, which party controls the house can
> be viewed one of two ways. The Republicans are out to get him as a
> symbol of everything they despise about the liberal, draft dodging 60s,
> or a hypothetical Democratic contolled house would have swept this all
> under the rug.

So what's the second way?

<snip>


> > and his policies are much better for working
> > women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
> > never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
> > infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
> > those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.
>
> My point exactly. Feminists are willing to hypocritically look the other
> way because of his policies, which is just fine - that's what politics
> are all about.

With the media today, everybody can look both ways, and then some.

> Just don't let them come back after this is done spouting
> nonsense about how good, pure and noble their cause is when they're
> really just another power group playing the game.

Name the group you're talking about. Do you mean NOW? If you mean NOW,
say NOW, don't just wave a finger at feminists everywhere.

You're likely to see it bitten off if you keep doing it.

> And there are a great
> many prominent Feminists (who actually believe that the ideals of
> Feminism are more important than political tactics) who are extremely
> uncomfortable with the NOW party line on this issue.

See? Feminists aren't all molecules of a monolith, you know. Just
because some factions shout a lot, it doesn't make them any more
important than the rest. (That goes for a certain country, too.)



> As a moderate Republican, I'm not one of those who stay awake at night
> worrying that Clinton is going to destroy the Republic.

As a Canadian, well, I'm allowed to laugh at the lot of you.

> I honestly
> can't figure out what it is about this guy that sets off my brothers
> (and sisters) on the far right. You would think, given his legistlative
> record on welfore reform and balancing the budget, that conservatives
> would love this man.

Yes well, looking at the image being offered, I'm wondering whether
anyone's thinking at all over there.

> Not since Nixon (yes I am that old) have I seen a politician that
> provoked such a visceral hatred.

You people (ie the people of the USA) really don't like looking at
Caliban, do you?

> And you would think that Nixon's
> policies towards China, arms control, creation of the EPA, etc. would
> have made him beloved of liberals.

Aren't people just hilariously funny-bizarre?


Mariane

--
"let's blur the intentions / and smudge what it stands for / reserve
the pretentions / for those who judge what we dance for / let's get
pissed / and buck the system / get our psyche's kissed / while our
flesh is twistin / it's not very often this army recruits / so let's
go Dancing In Heavy Boots." -- Dalbello

J. Otto Tennant

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to
daniel patrick duffy <thed...@fuse.net> writes:

>>
>> Lis Carey

>As a moderate Republican, I'm not one of those who stay awake at night
>worrying that Clinton is going to destroy the Republic. I honestly
>can't figure out what it is about this guy that sets off my brothers
>(and sisters) on the far right. You would think, given his legistlative
>record on welfore reform and balancing the budget, that conservatives
>would love this man.

>Not since Nixon (yes I am that old) have I seen a politician that
>provoked such a visceral hatred. And you would think that Nixon's
>policies towards China, arms control, creation of the EPA, etc. would
>have made him beloved of liberals.

>Best of wishes for the new year,

>Dan Duffy

I don't think there is hatred, in the sense that the liberals hate
Nixon. There is anger and frustration at the ability of the liberals to
ignore the law and to pervert it to their ends. I don't have time to
list the many cases, but the Clinton Administration's abuses in the
department of Justice, from killing the Whitewater investigation to the
A.G's refusal to investigate campaign finance violations are known to
zall. The liberals sharing President Clinton's moral bankruptcy just
don't care. Clinton should be impeached for violating the Tenure of
Office Act (Bill Lann Lee is the most egregious example).
--
J.Otto Tennant jo...@pobox.com
Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.
Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Rachel Brown

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to
> > For anyone who has ever read The Handmaids Tale (the movie isn't as
> > clear) How far away do you think we are from such a state?

We, as in the USA, are pretty darn far from it, at least as far as public
policy goes, IMHO.

On the other hand, Afghanistan's current Taliban government basically is
The Handmaid's Tale, minus the forced breeding. Women are not allowed to
hold jobs, go to school, or appear in public without a) wearing a burqa,
which is basically a sheet over the entire body with a tiny bit of mesh to
see out of, and b) being accompanied by a husband, brother, father, or son.
Women without male relatives are not excused from this rule, nor are women
who can't afford a burqa.

Women violating this rule are subject to severe beatings, and a number of
women have died because they couldn't leave the house to seek medical care
-- which is difficult to get anyway, because doctors are only allowed to
communicate with a woman via a male relative. Oh, yes, and houses that
contain women must paint their windows over. Not surprisingly, there has
been a large increase in female suicides since the takeover.

I'm not making this up, incredible as it sounds. Contact any international
human rights organization if you want to get more information or help out.

Rachel

daniel patrick duffy

unread,
Jan 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/1/99
to PMccutc103
PMccutc103 wrote:

>
> Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Difficult though some Republicans find it to grasp, Packwood and
> >Thomas were accused of _sexual harassment_; the evidence against
> >Packwood was overwhelming and his career came to a screeching halt,
> >while the evidence against Thomas was rather shaky and he was
> >confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court--by a Democrat-controlled
> >Senate. Whereas, OTOH, Clinton has been impeached by a

> >Republican-controlled House because of charges that he had
> >_consensual_ sex and lied about it.
>
> If I had my rolodex here I could come up with half a dozen experts who would
> testify that the power imbalance between Clinton and a very junior employee was
> so great that consent was impossible. If a corporate CEO had sex with a a
> newly-hired entry-level just-out-of-college employee, she could easily claim
> that her consent was not really consent. I'm not saying she'd win -- but such
> a case would likely go to a jury. Such a position is certainly consistent with
> the MacKinnon wing of the feminist movement.
>
> And you forgot one phrase -- he lied "under oath" about a putatively consesual
> relationship. Now, if you want to say that perjury doesn't count if it
> involves sex, well I suppose you can take that position. But we ask people to
> testify truthfully about sex all the time in all sorts of contexts, from sexual
> harassment cases to cases involving claims for loss of consortium. If lying
> about sex is OK, we might very well consider repealling laws against sexual
> harassment.

>
> >The singular, solitary case of
> >anyone claiming he committed sexual harassment was Paula Jones--and
> >she had an even weaker case than Anita Hill, and it was thrown out on
>
> It's not clear to me that Hill's case, if there had been a case, would have
> survived a motion to dismiss. She alleged a few sexual comments, but it's not
> clear that they were "severe and pervasive" enough to meet the relevant
> standard.
>
> Further, a lot of people think that Jones would have won her appeal. Indeed,
> if Clinton and his legal team were certain that she was going to lose, they
> most likely would not have settled. While I do think that her case had
> problems, it was far from frivolous. It's hard for me to see how inviting an
> employee to a hotel room, exposing yourself, and asking for oral sex doesn't at
> least get you to a jury. Granted, her case is undermined because she appears
> not to have been punished for her refusal, but a jury might infer that she
> could reasonably believe at the time that she would be punished, and that's
> probably enough.
>
> And I'm frankly a bit bemused by the notion that referring to yourself as "Long
> Dong Silver" is somehow worse than showing a woman your dong. I think that if
> Clarence Thomas had been accuased of such behavior, he would not have been
> confirmed.

>
> >the grounds that even if she could prove that everything she said was
> >true, it wasn't sexual harassment. The lack of feminist outrage at

> >Clinton is because he hasn't done the things that Packwood did and
> >Thomas was accused of, and his policies are much better for working

> >women than the policies of all these fine, upstanding Republicans who
> >never in their lives thought that either sexual harassment or marital
> >infidelity were all that bad, UNTIL they decided that they could use
> >those accusations to destroy a Democratic president.
>
> In point of fact, Republicans would be better off in a venal political sense to
> lay off the Lewinsky scandal and go after Clinton on policy matters; that is,
> after all, what the majority of Americans seem to want. Indeed, if Clinton is
> convicted by the Senate and removed from office, Gore will become the
> incumbant, giving him a clear advantage in 2000. I think that many
> Republicans actually believe that perjury and obstruction of justice are
> serious felonies, and that the President most likely committed them.
>
> I realize that Clinton's partisans would like to suggest that it's just about
> sex, but nobody has even suggested that Clinton should be impheached for having
> an extramarital relationship. The problem is that he almost certainly lied,
> under oath, about that relationship, and he may very well have attempted to
> obstruct justice in order to conceal his perjury.
> --
>
> Pete McCutchen


Well said Pete. I know that "What-Ifs" belong on another NG, but I can
see the following headlines if Clinton were a Republican:

"Feminists March on Washington Demanding Clinton be Impeached,
Blame Republican Congress for Stonewalling on Lustgate Investigation."

"In a statment issued today by NOW, the Feminist group blames
Republicans for fostering an atmosphere favorable to sexual harassment.
'First Bob Packwood, then Clarence Thomas and now President Clinton.
When will Hill, Jones and Wiley ever receive justice?' In response to
the Republican counter-charge that NOW's actions are politically
motivated, NOW's spokesperson stated that if "Clinton were a Democrat,
we would still be outraged."

PMccutc103

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to

James Nicoll

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to
In article <01be35d4$055136e0$2b10480c@default>,

See, for example, www.taliban.com.

--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.

Victoria Strauss

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to
daniel patrick duffy wrote:

> In response to
> the Republican counter-charge that NOW's actions are politically
> motivated, NOW's spokesperson stated that if "Clinton were a Democrat,
> we would still be outraged."

All the actions of all the parties in all these cases are politically motivated.
One of the more bizarre aspects of the whole Monicagate thing, for me, is the
spectacle of conservative Republicans--who were entirely ready to dismiss Anita
Hill's allegations as trivial and pointless--jumping on the sexual harassment stick,
and talking about issues of "consent" and "power." One of the most disgusting things
has been the spectacle of feminists--who were ready to send Clarence Hill
packing--trying to find ways of ignoring the allegations against Clinton. If you do
a point-by-point analysis, all sides in these cases are equally morally bankrupt. It
just goes to prove that people take positions not from principle but from political
partisanship, and that issues of ethics are infinitely elastic, depending on which
side of the political fence they fall.

-Victoria
--
Victoria Strauss
THE ARM OF THE STONE (Avon Eos 1998)
Homepage: http://www.sff.net/people/victoriastrauss
Writer Beware: http://www.sfwa.org/Beware/Warnings.html

Rick

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to
Victoria Strauss wrote:
>
> daniel patrick duffy wrote:
>
> > In response to
> > the Republican counter-charge that NOW's actions are politically
> > motivated, NOW's spokesperson stated that if "Clinton were a Democrat,
> > we would still be outraged."
>
> All the actions of all the parties in all these cases are politically motivated.
> One of the more bizarre aspects of the whole Monicagate thing, for me, is the
> spectacle of conservative Republicans--who were entirely ready to dismiss Anita
> Hill's allegations as trivial and pointless--jumping on the sexual harassment stick,
> and talking about issues of "consent" and "power." One of the most disgusting things
> has been the spectacle of feminists--who were ready to send Clarence Hill
> packing--trying to find ways of ignoring the allegations against Clinton. If you do
> a point-by-point analysis, all sides in these cases are equally morally bankrupt. It
> just goes to prove that people take positions not from principle but from political
> partisanship, and that issues of ethics are infinitely elastic, depending on which
> side of the political fence they fall.
>
> -Victoria
> --


I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
Jones like rabid dogs.

daniel patrick duffy

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to Lynn Calvin
Lynn Calvin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 07:23:33 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Boston wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <368E92...@leading.net>, rang...@leading.net says...
> >> >
> >> >[snip]

> >> >
> >> >I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
> >> >feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
> >> >Jones like rabid dogs.
> >>
> >> I guess I slept through that. Would you mind naming a few
> >> NOW feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" and who
> >> attacked Paula Jones like rabid dogs?
> >
> >Given that NOW lobbied hard against Clarence Thomas & co., & has maintained at
> >best an uneasy silence on the subject of Bill Clinton, I'd suggest that it
> >would be rather disingenuous to claim the two subsets of NOW's membership did
> >not overlap. It would also be rather naive to expect anyone to admit belonging
> >to both.
>
> Let us stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that both women
> are telling the truth. I still believe there is a difference between
> repeated incidents persisting after an announcement that they are
> unwelcome over a period of years, and a single incident.
>
> This sets aside any negative career impact either woman may have
> experienced.
> Lynn Calvin
> lca...@interaccess.com

You are describing a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
It's ammusing to watch NOW's mental back flips as they "stand by their
man". A Republican prez would have been crucified by the feminists for
doing the same thing.

John Boston

unread,
Jan 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/3/99
to
In article <368E92...@leading.net>, rang...@leading.net says...
>
>[snip]
>
>I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
>feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
>Jones like rabid dogs.


I guess I slept through that. Would you mind naming a few
NOW feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" and who
attacked Paula Jones like rabid dogs?

John Boston


Jay Random

unread,
Jan 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/3/99
to

Given that NOW lobbied hard against Clarence Thomas & co., & has maintained at

Lynn Calvin

unread,
Jan 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/3/99
to
On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 07:23:33 GMT, Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com>
wrote:

>John Boston wrote:

Let us stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that both women

Bill McHale

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to
J. Otto Tennant (j...@visi.com) wrote:

: I don't think there is hatred, in the sense that the liberals hate


: Nixon. There is anger and frustration at the ability of the liberals to
: ignore the law and to pervert it to their ends. I don't have time to
: list the many cases, but the Clinton Administration's abuses in the
: department of Justice, from killing the Whitewater investigation to the
: A.G's refusal to investigate campaign finance violations are known to
: zall. The liberals sharing President Clinton's moral bankruptcy just
: don't care. Clinton should be impeached for violating the Tenure of
: Office Act (Bill Lann Lee is the most egregious example).

Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed
to investigate just that. After running rough shod over that case he was
never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
in that case. It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that
he turned to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.

As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court more than 70 years ago.

The simple fact of the matter is that the rabid nature with which the
Republicans in the House have persued this indicates a lack of rational
thought on their part. It has been clear since Novemeber that the
Republicans could not achieve a Conviction in the Senate, and that every
step that the Republicans have taken versus the President Reduces their
capital with the American People.

--
Bill

***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************

Cambias

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to
In article <76qi4p$acb$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:

> J. Otto Tennant (j...@visi.com) wrote:
>
> : I don't think there is hatred, in the sense that the liberals hate
> : Nixon. There is anger and frustration at the ability of the liberals to
> : ignore the law and to pervert it to their ends. I don't have time to
> : list the many cases, but the Clinton Administration's abuses in the
> : department of Justice, from killing the Whitewater investigation to the
> : A.G's refusal to investigate campaign finance violations are known to
> : zall. The liberals sharing President Clinton's moral bankruptcy just
> : don't care. Clinton should be impeached for violating the Tenure of
> : Office Act (Bill Lann Lee is the most egregious example).
>

> As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
> 110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
> Court more than 70 years ago.
>

What he's referring to is the constitutional requirement that Cabinet
members be approved by the Senate. Clinton has made an end run around
this by simply appointing lots of "acting" department heads. What I find
shocking is that the Senate hasn't taken steps to bring him to account on
it -- ultimately that's a much more serious abuse of power than Clinton's
other crimes.

Cambias

by the way (I know I'm guilty, too) what the HELL does this have to do with SF?

Victoria Strauss

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to
daniel patrick duffy wrote:

> You are describing a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
> It's ammusing to watch NOW's mental back flips as they "stand by their
> man". A Republican prez would have been crucified by the feminists for
> doing the same thing.

A Republican prez would never have been impeached. Any indictment of one side of the
argument shouldn't leave out an indictment of the other. Conservative Republicans
have been backflipping at least as high in their condemnation of Clinton vs. their
support of Hill. Seems to me that all of these folks, liberal or conservative, are
more like one another than they are like someone with a principle.

Larry Caldwell

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
In article <19990102013837...@ng95.aol.com>,
pmccu...@aol.com writes:

> If I had my rolodex here I could come up with half a dozen experts who would
> testify that the power imbalance between Clinton and a very junior employee was
> so great that consent was impossible. If a corporate CEO had sex with a a
> newly-hired entry-level just-out-of-college employee, she could easily claim
> that her consent was not really consent. I'm not saying she'd win -- but such
> a case would likely go to a jury. Such a position is certainly consistent with
> the MacKinnon wing of the feminist movement.

Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.

I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.

OBSF, I was just thinking that 1999 is nothing at all like what I
expected when I started reading SF 40 years ago. Supercomputers on
every desk, but no artificial intelligence. Thousands of artificial
satellites, but only one clunky space ship that hardly makes low orbit.
No lunar colonies, but prime time TV news programs that discuss the
President of the USA's use of a cigar as a dildo. And now we all know
that Clinton didn't inhale and Monica didn't swallow.

Really strange.

-- Larry

Bill McHale

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
4019909...@l0046.dialup.cornell.edu>:
Distribution:

spahmtrapCambias (cambias@heliograph..edu) wrote:
: In article <76qi4p$acb$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:

: What he's referring to is the constitutional requirement that Cabinet


: members be approved by the Senate. Clinton has made an end run around
: this by simply appointing lots of "acting" department heads. What I find
: shocking is that the Senate hasn't taken steps to bring him to account on
: it -- ultimately that's a much more serious abuse of power than Clinton's
: other crimes.

Ok, well that is different... When he said Tenure of Office Act, well I
got echos of Andrew Johnson running through my head.

I will grant that Clinton has failed to get confirmation on alot of his
upper level appointees.. but then again, Congress could have and should
have done something about it long ago... and unless Clinton refuses after
all is said and done should it really be considered grounds for
impeachment.

PMccutc103

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:


>Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
>Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed
>to investigate just that.

The administration did not "kill" the investigation. Nonetheless, they were
hardly forthcoming in producing documents and the like. Perhaps their conduct
did not rise to "obstruction of justice," but we generally do expect the
President to cooperate in criminal investigations.

After running rough shod over that case he was
>never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
>in that case.

Ah, the James Carville line. In fact, Starr produced sufficient evidence to
convict about a dozen people, including a then-sitting governor of Arkansas.
But yes, he did clear the President of wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter.
That should make you happy, no?

>It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that
>he turned to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.

Well, not exactly. Linda Tripp came to him with her story. That story was
linked to Whitewater because of the Vernon Jordan connection. As required by
statute, Starr went to the Attorney General and asked her what to do. She went
to the three judge panel that appointed Starr and they authorized him to expand
his inquiry.

When Tripp came to him he had to take that to the AG. When the panel
authorized him to investigate, he was duty-bound to do so.

>
>As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed
>110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
>Court more than 70 years ago.

As a side note, I don't think Clinton should be impeached for violating the
Tenure of Office Act, which was, as you say repealed. However, I will note as
an aside that _Humphrey's Executor_ has been at least undermined by _Morrison
v. Olsen_, though perhaps some might survive. The extent to which Congress can
control the President's power to remove executive officials was debated
inconclusively by the First Congress, and it is an issue that continues to
puzzle constitutional scholars. While a good argument can be made against the
Tenure of Office Act (an argument which I would agree with, by the way), it's a
bit glib to just say that it was unconstitutional. Or to imply that
_Humphrey's Executor_, classic though it is, is going to be the last word on
these matters.

>
>The simple fact of the matter is that the rabid nature with which the
>Republicans in the House have persued this indicates a lack of rational
>thought on their part. It has been clear since Novemeber that the
>Republicans could not achieve a Conviction in the Senate, and that every
>step that the Republicans have taken versus the President Reduces their
>capital with the American People.
>


--

Pete McCutchen

Paul Connelly

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
In article <76qi4p$acb$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:

> Stupid question, but how exactly did the administration kill the
> Whitewater investigation? Kenneth Starr was in fact originally appointed

> to investigate just that. After running rough shod over that case he was


> never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing

> in that case. It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that


> he turned to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.

The best analogy i can think of to the Republican plan to impeach
Clinton (which has been in progress since his election and probably
before he was even inaugurated the first time) is a quote from the
Joseph Heller book _Catch-22_:

"The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was
something to charge him with."

That just about sums up the Special Prosecutor's mandate.

By the way, someone referred to themselves as a "moderate Republican"
earlier in this string. Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.

- paul

Rick

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
Jay Random wrote:

>
> Paul Connelly wrote:
> >
> > The best analogy i can think of to the Republican plan to impeach
> > Clinton (which has been in progress since his election and probably
> > before he was even inaugurated the first time) is a quote from the
> > Joseph Heller book _Catch-22_:
> >
> > "The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was
> > something to charge him with."
> >
> > That just about sums up the Special Prosecutor's mandate.
> >
> > By the way, someone referred to themselves as a "moderate Republican"
> > earlier in this string. Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>
> It's drivel like this that caused me to lose all respect for the Democratic
> Party. Yeah, right, _all_ your political opponents are extremist loons. Sure.

Yeah--and like there is any such thing as a moderate democrat. Clinton
is the closest thing they have to one.

Jay Random

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to

Jay Random

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
>
> I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.

Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
employer & employee.

Joseph Askew

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to

>I would think one of the most disgusting things is seeing all those NOW
>feminists who wore buttons saying "We believe Anita" attacking Paula
>Jones like rabid dogs.

Myself, I take a middle ground position. I hope both the Religious
Right and the Hard Core Feminist Left (if there is such a thing any
more) take heavy credibility losses on this. Preferably in some other
news group.

Notice the follow-ups.

Joseph

--
Reason Why I'm Never Going to Get an Academic Job Number Three:
"[Monsanto] said that they had carried out 'extensive safety
assessments of new biotech crops' including tests using rats
that have results published in journals" (http://news.bbc.co.uk)

Mariane Desautels

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
Rick wrote:

>
> Jay Random wrote:
> >
> > It's drivel like this that caused me to lose all respect for the Democratic
> > Party. Yeah, right, _all_ your political opponents are extremist loons. Sure.
>
> Yeah--and like there is any such thing as a moderate democrat.

What about a moderate ararchist? :-)

Mariane

--
I'm turning off the puter for a few days. E-mail me if you want to be
sure I get your replies. Mind the spamblock.

Jay Random

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> What part of "most" is giving you trouble here?

I don't actually believe that `most' feminists are _not_ members of that
subgroup. Mind you, I define `feminist' not as one who believes in equal
opportunity & rights for women (which is no longer an ism but a given), but
one who _belongs to & actively lobbies for a self-styled feminist
organization_. _Organized_ feminists -- & those are the only ones I apply that
particular `ist' label to -- are nowhere near as moderate or rational as the
general run of women.

Gareth Wilson

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican

> died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>

Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
e-mail gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
Gareth Wilson wrote:
>
> Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
> >
>
> Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?

In his last few years, younger Arizona Republicans suspected him of
dangerous liberal tendencies, because he supported women's
reproductive rights and said, concerning who could or couldn't serve
in the US military, "You don't need to be straight; you just need to
shoot straight." "Old 'nuke 'em' Goldwater was, on many issues,
_considerably_ to the left of the leadership of the present-day
Republican Party, and assessing his spot on the political spectrum by
where he was in relation to Lyndon Johnson thirty-five years ago can
be somewhat misleading.

Lis Carey

Bill McHale

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
PMccutc103 (pmccu...@aol.com) wrote:
: wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:

: >never able to find enough evidence to prosecute Clinton of any wrong doing
: >in that case.

: Ah, the James Carville line. In fact, Starr produced sufficient evidence to


: convict about a dozen people, including a then-sitting governor of Arkansas.
: But yes, he did clear the President of wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter.
: That should make you happy, no?

The point is not the other people in the Whitewater investigation. I am
not disputing that there was wrong doing there. However, it is also true
the Starr persued the case with rabid viciousness, not caring whose lives
he destroyed in an attempt to get them to "provide testimony" against
Clinton. I mean really, was it necessary for him to have a 17 year old
supeoned in class? How about making repeated threats of prosecution for
crimes that he had no evidence of?

: >It was not until he failed to turn anything up there that : >he turned


to the Paula Jones Desposition that led to the whole mess.


: >
: >As for the Tenure of Office Act... Surely you know that that was repealed

: >110 years ago, and that it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
: >Court more than 70 years ago.

: As a side note, I don't think Clinton should be impeached for violating the
: Tenure of Office Act, which was, as you say repealed. However, I will note as
: an aside that _Humphrey's Executor_ has been at least undermined by _Morrison
: v. Olsen_, though perhaps some might survive. The extent to which Congress can
: control the President's power to remove executive officials was debated
: inconclusively by the First Congress, and it is an issue that continues to
: puzzle constitutional scholars. While a good argument can be made against the
: Tenure of Office Act (an argument which I would agree with, by the way), it's a
: bit glib to just say that it was unconstitutional. Or to imply that
: _Humphrey's Executor_, classic though it is, is going to be the last word on
: these matters.

Of course it is never the last word.. the Court can and has reversed
itself numerous times in the past, hell they have often enough ignored
entire amendments to the Constitution (For example Segregation) when it
suited the agenda of the Court members.

In any case, the whole question is kind of moot unless Congress were to
reinstate the the Tenure of Office Act.

Bill McHale

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
ya02368000050...@news1.ziplink.net>
<369317...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> <36935928...@mediaone.net>:
Distribution:

Elisabeth Carey (lis....@mediaone.net) wrote:


Hell if you use the standards of the Johnson years, most modern Democrats
don't look all that Liberal. With the exception of a few issues, this
country has generally gotten more conservative over the last 20 years.
Even worse, the Republican party orginization (as opposed to registered
Republicans as a whole) has tended to become conservative even faster.
Lets remember, the reason Dan Quayle was Bush's Vice-President was
essentially a deal cut with the Extreme Right Wing of the Party; a group
that is far more concerned with ideological correctness than with the
capability of a person to do the job.

James Nicoll

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
In article <369317...@student.canterbury.ac.nz>,

Gareth Wilson <gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
>> died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>>
>
>Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?

Sometimes nuking them *is* the moderate approach.

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
In article <3692D8F5...@home.com>,

Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com> wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> >
> > Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> > perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> > However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> > voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
> >
> > I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
>
> Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
> movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
> employer & employee.
>
There are also feminists who believe that it's really condescending to tell
people that they haven't consented when they think they have.

-Ailsa

--
But to explicitly advocate cultural relativism ailsa....@tfn.com
on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to Ailsa N.T. Murphy
implicitly assume that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any
absolute values, however, cultural relativism is false. -Theodore Schick

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
In article <369313FB...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca>,

desautel...@videotron.ca wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > Jay Random wrote:
> > >
> > > It's drivel like this that caused me to lose all respect for the
Democratic
> > > Party. Yeah, right, _all_ your political opponents are extremist loons.
Sure.
> >
> > Yeah--and like there is any such thing as a moderate democrat.
>
> What about a moderate ararchist? :-)
>
How 'bout an evangelistic agnostic?

Aaron P. Brezenski

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
In article <36935928...@mediaone.net>,

Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Paul Connelly wrote: Sorry, pal. The last moderate Republican
>> > died not too long ago. His name was Goldwater. He'll be missed.
>> Old "nuke 'em" Goldwater? A moderate?
>In his last few years, younger Arizona Republicans suspected him of
>dangerous liberal tendencies, because he supported women's
>reproductive rights and said, concerning who could or couldn't serve
>in the US military, "You don't need to be straight; you just need to
>shoot straight." "Old 'nuke 'em' Goldwater was, on many issues,
>_considerably_ to the left of the leadership of the present-day
>Republican Party, and assessing his spot on the political spectrum by
>where he was in relation to Lyndon Johnson thirty-five years ago can
>be somewhat misleading.

Especially if you're foolish enough to think politics is so one-dimensional
that it can be adequately described with words like "left", "right", or even
"moderate".

Aaron Brezenski
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me."

Card-Carrying Member of the Illuminati

Aaron P. Brezenski

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
In article <76vvi6$ar9$2...@news.umbc.edu>, Bill McHale <wmc...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>Hell if you use the standards of the Johnson years, most modern Democrats
>don't look all that Liberal. With the exception of a few issues, this
>country has generally gotten more conservative over the last 20 years.

And the "conservatives" would assert that the country has generally gotten
more "liberal" in the last 20 years. Who's right? Who do you define as
"the country"? The entire populace, or that minority of the population
which votes? Or perhaps you mean the sad collection of misfits who are our
eyes and ears, the Media? Or even the 535 elected officials who legislate?

The facts are that the country has passed a very large number of laws in the
last 20 years, and very few repeals of existing laws. I'd assert that this
indicates this "country" is becoming more authoritarian (left or right, does
it matter?) and less free. That sort of fits the evidence better than
claiming the never-ending pendulum-swing between Republocrat and Demublican
is any indication of a trend one way or the other.

>Even worse, the Republican party orginization (as opposed to registered
>Republicans as a whole) has tended to become conservative even faster.

And the Democratic party has retained their... "liberality"... while
consistently insisting that they are "moderate". Has the Democratic party
platform *really* changed all that much in the last 20 years, or have the
words they use to describe the issues changed? At least the Republicans,
demented as they can be, admit they are "conservative" instead of trying to
hide their true colors behind words like "center", "moderate", and "typical
American" (or, worst, "pro-business").

>Lets remember, the reason Dan Quayle was Bush's Vice-President was
>essentially a deal cut with the Extreme Right Wing of the Party; a group
>that is far more concerned with ideological correctness than with the
>capability of a person to do the job.

And Green-Man Gore wasn't a mirror of this situation? Quayle was obviously
a schmuck, but I've heard Gore speak. He's no better, and he was designed
to appeal to the Greens in the same way Quayle was designed to appeal to the
Kooks.

Evelyn C. Leeper

unread,
Jan 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/6/99
to
In article <7705c3$pdm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Ailsa Murphy <ailsa....@tfn.com> wrote:
> In article <3692D8F5...@home.com>,
> Jay Random <j.ra...@home.com> wrote:
> > Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Ceertainly, and if Monica decided to claim that she was not consenting to
> > > perform oral sex on the prez she might have a claim against him.
> > > However, she has never said that, and has many times indicated that she
> > > voluntarily and enthusiasticly pursued the encounters.
> > >
> > > I think most feminists would accept that as definitive.
> >
> > Nope. There is a loud & vocal, & possibly numerous, wing of the feminist
> > movement that does indeed maintain that consent is impossible between an
> > employer & employee.
> >
> There are also feminists who believe that it's really condescending to tell
> people that they haven't consented when they think they have.

Or as Patrick Nielsen Hayden said (in a quote worth keeping):
"I've been a no-means-no feminist all my adult life. But for that to be
meaningful, yes has to also mean yes. The notion that 'consent' is
impossible between people of different social standing is utterly corrosive
to the idea that free people can make rational decisions."

--
Evelyn C. Leeper | evelyn...@geocities.com
+1 732 957 2070 |