Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (10504)	10/21/1998 1:57:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Why in the world are you threatened by someone's lifestyle choice? These Conservative Christians have as much right to organize their lives as anyone else. They have the first amendment right to advocate and try to sell their free choices to any who will listen. I don't know of any group who advocates using the coercive force of government to enforce their choices on anyone else. If there are any, they are tiny aberrations and preach a distorted version of the Gospel.

To: jbe who wrote (10504)	10/21/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

jbe - not to get theological, but the fear, IMO, is misplaced. True, there are Christian teachings that, taken literally, set women as some kind of property of men. There are also Christian teachings that forbid any number of what used to be "evils" that are now commonplace. There was a big blowup in the Baptists when the ruling that women were to be something like "graciously submissive" to their husbands. Bet that went over really big in some homes! <vbg> If I had been one of those Baptist husbands and had even hinted that things were going to change in my house I'd be looking out in the street for my belongings, and rightfully so. The problem is, what is the threat? Did they marry a man that is going to take that literally and put them back into subservience? Are all men knuckle-dragging buffoons (no wait, don't answer that, yet!) and all women so easily intimidated? I think we have enough strong women and enough religious diversity in this country to make any such threat a red herring. In fact, to be completely politically incorrect, if you want to worry about a threat to the status of women, consider the cultural history of the most rapidly growing segment of the US population - the Latino or Hispanic community, where traditional machismo has its own interesting twist on what women are or aren't supposed to be. Regarding "spin," I think you'd have to agree that spin is what we used to call "public relations." What I see different now is the lack of solid lines between journalism and commentary. Spin is like PR on speed; with PR you get "placements" in the newspapers and magazines and 20-second bits on tv or radio news. With spin you get James Carville spitting on the TV three or four times a week. You're in the media realm - you know full well how stories are assigned, covered (or uncovered) and how "personalities" get scheduled for appearances. It's another branch of the quid pro quo peddling game, but with information as the currency of exchange rather than voting influence and campaign contributions. The Republicans are hopelessly behind the times on spin - they're way out of touch with the media elite and are bringing knives to a gunfight when they play the media game inside the beltway. JMO Mr. K.