HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:17:34 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>This is no longer a discussion of the environment.

Sure it is.  It's a discussion of environmental protections that
have "worked".

>I am sure that you do not believe that protection/killing of animals
>is what environmental protection is all about.

I believe that the distinctions that Leader wants to make are artificial.

>There are people eating
>contaminated fish, children developing brain tumors and leukemia from
>exposure to toxic waste, increasing numbers of people every day are
>getting sick from the air they breath, large areas of coastal waters
>are being dessimated from oil spills and other contamination,
>forests are dying from acid rain, whole countries are suffering from
>famine because of soil degradation resulting from cutting down TREES,
>solar radiation increases due to holeS in the ozone layer resulting
>in skin cancer becoming as common as pimples,etc. etc. the list goes
>on and on.

Again, Leader distorts the direction and some effects, and assumes
that "environmentalists" have had effects they haven't had.

Today's factoid; 80% of the Superfund money goes to lawyers and their
staffs, and that's one of the major successes of environmentalists.
Socking the citizens of Love Canal, who elected the govt that decided
to build houses on a chemical dump and seized land to do it, would
have been more effective, but not the sort of press that
"environmentalists" like.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:34:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: morals
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings: To Robert

        Your original response to my challenge to justify a
prohibition on homosexuals adopting children was to seek to avoid
being 'boxed in' by proclaiming "I stand by 'homosexuals should
not be allowed to adopt,'  Pick any justification you like.

        My response was that this was inadequate, and offered
an anologous claim 'I stand by 'christians should not be allowed
to adopt,' Pick any justification you like.


Robert's reply:

> I can't think of a justification for this.  What's yours?

        Sorry, Robert, I don't want to be 'boxed in' by pro-
viding an argument.  Like I said, just pick one.  It's still
the case that chrsitains should not be allowed to adopt.

        Warning, Robert, this is satire.  I don't believe that
this type of response is inadequate.  I only hope that you can
come to see this as well.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu

P.S.  When I asked you to consider something of value to you
which is prohited and which those who prohibited it feel no
sense of attempting to provide justification, you listed
"school prayer, nativity scenes, and religous clubs in schools."

        Sorry, these do not qualify.  I asked for things which
you are prohibited from doing AND which those who prohibited it
do not at least try to offer some justification for their behavior.
So far as I know, most who argue against allowing school prayer,
nativity scenes, and the like will give you reasons for their
decision if asked.  They may not be GOOD reasons, but at least it
is a starting point for further discussion.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:22:05 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bias and discrimination

 *** Resending note of 08/31/92 13:15


 >It is one thing to say "we did our best to hire the most
 >qualified people, but most happen to be white," it is another
 >thing to say "statistically blacks are criminals 10 times
 >than whites, therefore we decided to hire whites only."
 >-KAT

 CAREFUL CAREFUL CAREFUL !!!

 You are entering the sacred area of unemployment and crime statistics.  The
 path you walk is indeed narrow.  A dreaded slip will cost you the wrath of
 all NAACP and other assorted practitioners of fostering racism.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:46:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      another convention

there was another convention going on in atlantic city.
it was some sort of singles convention put on by some match-maker, dating
service or something.
they expected 100,000 people.
12 showed up.

i wonder what that means?

-linda
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: bee@ms.uky.edu (Elizabeth Gilliam)
Subject: Quotes by Conservatives
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 08:32:36 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

For some research I am doing, i would like any copies of 
speeches, or sources of quotes about ideas, policies, or
just anything by any of the modern conservatives, including....
    
Bush
Quayle
David Duke
Pat Buchanan

and anyone else.

(vague enough for ya?)
-- 
elizabeth a. gilliam: bee@ms.uky.edu
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:55:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Human Life Amendment

> I don't understand why anyone has problems with the idea of a Human
> Life Amendment.  Part of the design of the amendment process is to
> make it very very difficult to get one actually passed.  In the
> process, the national debate is engaged, the people have an
> opportunity to voice their opinions, and the will of the majority
> eventually becomes the law of the land.

You don't start a discussion by trying the amend the Constitution.  You
start a discussion by talking.  When you try to amend the Constitution
you're trying to change the law, and that's a lot more serious than just
talking.  So which are they trying to do?  Sounds pretty disingenuous to
me.

Besides, it's been tried more than once without success.  Why don't we
give it seven years, as you said in a later post?  Because it didn't get
enough votes in the Congress.

Best,
Peter

> --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:38:33 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Gore on the Environment

     As -andy has made some of this post too long for me to add arrows
     to, I will be indenting instead.

"Lately Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured
into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor
environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in
Gore's words, `undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support
for the difficult actions we must soon take'." [New Republic, 7-6-92]

Does anyone want to confirm that TNR actually printed that?  (I
haven't.)  Assuming that Gore actually said it (which is different
than confirming that TNR actually printed it), does anyone want to
argue the idea is a good one?  (Yes, it is an effective tactic.)

     As I never read the New Republic, I cannot say that TNR said that.
     I do know (via the Washington DC City Paper) that Al Gore has
     said such stuff. Sorry, I cannot cite at this moment. I think that
     this is an effective tactic, but if the anti-environmentalists
     are able to show this, the work of environmentalists will be
     seriously undermined.

     So, while in small doses it can be effective, I would be careful
     about large-scale disinformation campaigns, as they can backfire.
     Leave disinformation to the Pentagon and the RNC. B)

-andy

Dave, the One True Defender of the Environment
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
"John Muir once said that everything in this world is connected to
everything else.  He was correct, except about the rocks in
Glacier National Park."

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:11:58 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: things are not going well...

linda:

I'm sorry your thumb is messed up.  And I didn't laugh.

It sounds like you get paid by the same people I do (and patronize
the same creditors.  Get an answering maching and ignore them until
you get the money.  It really does work.)

Hope your party goes well.  And things get better.  I would pray for
you, but I'm not sure if you'd want me to.  Let me know private.

Glad you're back from the ozone, too.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:37:01 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: little answer to little question

Hi, y'all.  My esteemed running mate wrote:

>> You're "right." (pun intended.)  The things KAT refers to as rights are
>> not rights at all, but merely things that it would be nice to have
>> (excepting military service, which is a duty, not a right.)

Doesn't this raise the question of why some of us have this duty and others
don't?

Just wondering :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:27:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
              28 Aug 1992 12:05:14 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

30 million is a *total* figure since 1973, when Roe was decided.
Annually, there are 1.6 million.  I'm sorry.  I thought that was
relatively clear.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:45:21 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: An easy answer to a little question

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

Yes, many conservatives, myself included, believe that homosexuality is morally
wrong and yes, we believe that for mainly religious reasons.  However, I know
of no one who thinks that because they engage in an immoral activiy, gays
should therefore be denied the same rights which everyone else enjoys.
**********************

    - Try the right to serve your country in the armed forces.
    - Try not being able to benefit the lower tax rate for
      married couple.
    - Try not being able to include your spouse in the company's
      health plan.
    - Try the right not to be fired because of your sexual
      orientation.

> Jason Zimmerman

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:21:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: little answer to little question

>From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>>From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>>Yes, many conservatives, myself included, believe that homosexuality is morall
   y
>>wrong and yes, we believe that for mainly religious reasons.  However, I know
>>of no one who thinks that because they engage in an immoral activiy, gays
>>should therefore be denied the same rights which everyone else enjoys.
>**********************

>    - Try the right to serve your country in the armed forces.

This is not a right.  Thousands of people are currently being involuntarily
discharged due to military cutbacks.  Are you arguing that their "right" to
join the army is being abridged?  I doubt it.

>    - Try not being able to benefit the lower tax rate for
>      married couple.

This is not a right.  Since I'm single, I can't benefit from that lower tax
code either.  Any student of the U.S. tax code will back me up in saying that
its pretty darn arbitrary.  There are no "right" embodied in it, since it can
changed or repealed by a simple legislative majority (or, effectively, by an
IRS administrative decision).

    - Try not being able to include your spouse in the company's
      health plan.

Health care is not a right, nor is participation in a company's health plan a
right.

    - Try the right not to be fired because of your sexual
      orientation.

No one has a right to a job.  Once again, people are being fired, for whatever
reason, every day.  Are their rights being abridged?

I'll reread my copy of the Constitution.  I must have missed all of these new
amendments.

>--KAT

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:59:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Speech and Evolution

>Yep.  That's why I best like to discuss this stuff over pizza and beer :)

kerry,

so okay, when do we order the pizza?
jamie can bring the beer-(anything but bud or lite beer).

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:19:54 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Jamie's Response to my Deadly Force post

From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>

> Jamie,
>    Your response to my post was assinine.  I will repond to your dribble
> in the very near future.

That's strange, you had time to write a long AND assinine (sic)
posts just recently??  Hmmmm.

Carl's Rule #2:  If I can't answer your posts, it must be an
asinine respond.

Anybody remembers Carl's Rule #1.  Jamie would give a T-shirt
to the first person who remembers it.   :-)

> Carl-------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:54:52 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      concerning liese's predictions....

Perot is on the ballot in CA, and 35 of the states.

He's no longer running for president, but, if it's
other people's money, he'll let his ego be stroked.

(Watermelon tastes best stolen, too, so they say.)

Folks, this list is just too damn depressing.  I mean,
it isn't really the bad politics that gets me down....
It is the really stupid people arguing it that depresses
the hell out of me.

Apologies to all of you who don't fit that category,
and there are plenty of you, but it is the thick as
a brick crowd dominating these days.

When the logic czar has to spend his time on the one
hand acting as a dictionary ("so, let's just see what
the definition of 'violate' is, here.") and on the other
hand pleading for an argument ("just one piece of evidence,
anything other than a bald assertion...") you know things
have gone to pot.  (All you latent drug warriors, that's
just an expression.)

These are the times you come to appreciate lists that
are moderated, and euthenasia.

And finally, for those of YOU for whom this shoe fits,
I hope YOU find YOUR way to YOUR unearthly paradise
on the express bus.  Let the rest of us profit from
gaining the world.  I just hope YOU don't find the
doors locked against YOU when YOU arrive.

("Well, I'm sorry sir, but we were very clear about
the 'love your neighbor' stipulation.  Even if you
did think them twisted.  Holding them accountable
for their sins has always been quite explicitly our
department.  The escalator down is to the left.")

                  -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:22:01 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      morals

 *** Resending note of 08/28/92 10:11


 >Ok, how about a show of hands here.  Who thinks that its MORE selfish
 >to hoist your morals on others?

 Since when has taking responsibility for your actions fallen under the
 heading of hoisting morals?

 >ok, and now, who thinks its selfish to have children you can't
 >take care of?

 The list of those awaiting adoptions grows longer every day.  Many now
 make private adoption arrangements.  Why can't this process be streamlined?

 >jcs

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:23:25 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Bias and discrimination
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              31 Aug 1992 12:57:03 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:57:03 EDT K=A*T said:

>> It's been said 2/3 of the women murdered in this country know their
>> attacker (FBI stat.).  Do we see anyone screaming genderal bias
>> when the law enforcement officers query males a murdered woman knew or
>> do we assume they are playing the odds?

>Aside from having different circumstances, I don't recall
>discrimination based on acquaintance was illegal, but discrimination
>based on race is.

But how is playing the odds of a profile discrimination? (seriously)

I know one can show bias via statistics and make a case, but philosophically
speaking (let's put legalities aside for a moment), is it bias /s intent?

If a business has an overwhelming majourity of some demographic group
are they racist regardless of what decisions are used to create that
group?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:34:50 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      ghwb sings the blues

>>MP2B says: "Those who are posting on this subject without any knowledge
>>of it (except what they learned from books) are way out of line and
>>abysmally ignorant".

>fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET> says:
>Thank you for summing up exactly how I feel about post's on the word of
>god.

I couldn't have said it better, Fred!  A "tip of my hat" to you.

   Now....another in the series of topical Dan Quayle quotes...
   ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)

    "Don't forget about the importance of the family. It begins with
the family. We're not going to redefine the family. Everybody knows the
definition of the family. [Meaningful pause] A child. [Meaningful pause] A
mother. [Meaningful pause] A father. There are other arrangements of the
family, but that is a family and family values.
    I've been very blessed with wonderful parents and a wonderful
family, and I am proud of my family. Anybody turns to their family. I have
a very good family. I'm very fortunate to have a very good family. I
believe very strongly in the family. It's one of the things we have in
our platform, is to talk about it.
    I suppose three important things certainly come to my mind that we
want to say thank you. The first would be our family. Your family, my
family -- which is composed of an immediate family of a wife and three
children, a larger family with grandparents and aunts and uncles. We all
have our family, whichever that may be ... The very beginnings of
civilization, the very beginnings of this country, goes back to the family.
And time and time again, I'm often reminded, especially in this
Presidential campaign, of the importance of a family, and what a family
means to this country. And so when you pay thanks I suppose the first thing
that would come to mind would be to thank the Lord for the family."
        -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
      I have yet to meet a person wanting their tombstone engraved....
                 "I wish I had worked harder at my job!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:34:24 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Wrongness revisited

>From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
>
>just a question to logic czar abt. aversions, etc.
>jamie,
>don't you think that to talk about aversions, desires you need to look first
>at biological imperetives: ie: desire for foods, based on nutritional needs
>to ensure survival of individual?

Whew.
That's a killer question.
I think the answer is very complicated.

When used soberly and carefully, the kind of method you're suggesting
can probably help some in unmuddying the waters (as you say). Unfortunately,
it tends to be used wantonly and carelessly. I'm not going to give
you references unless you ask--I'd hate to disseminate reading lists
of bad theorizing!

Certain kinds of behavior and motivation can probably be explained
by attention to evolution. The kinds that have the best chance
of being so explained are the very raw ones, like sexual urges.

Some biologists cook up interesting little speculations about how
the norms of private property, for example, might have developed
through evolutionary processes. These speculations are no more
than speculative, though. No one has the faintest idea what
mechanisms might be in place in our bodies or genes to make us
covetous or jealous of our property. There isn't any particularly
good reason to think that the norms have any specific and
identifiable biological basis--except of course that they
are excresences of our brains, which are biological organs.

(Still, some of the explanations are VERY suggestive. Something
that looks in many ways an awful lot like private property
clearly does develop through evolution, in birds, for example.)

By contrast, some work in the sociobiology of animals has
much better scientific support. It's unfortunate that the
solid scientific work in zoology seems superficially so similar
to the somewhat irresponsible speculations in human ethology.
It's unfortunate for two reasons: first, it leads some to suppose
that the respect due to evolutionary theory is inherited by
sociobiology as a way of studying human behavior. Someday, maybe,
but not yet by a long shot. Second, it leads others to suppose
that the problems with which human sociobiology is shot through
must also plague all attempts to explain behavior within the
framework of evolutionary theory. Premature confidence in
natural science is dangerous, as is the antirational damning
of important advances in science.

A very good, though in parts very technical, examination of the
difficulties that beset the sociobiological approach to human
behavior, is Philip Kitcher's _Vaulting Ambition_. Kerry K.
will remember that I also recommended Kitcher's book on
creationism, _Abusing Science_.
I also like the title, "Vaulting Ambition." It's from "Macbeth."

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:20:48 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      nonpolitical quote

Hi Y'all:

I know this isn't really political, but I just had to tell somebody
that I knew would be smart enough to know what's wrong with this
quote:

[This guy killed his parents.  He gave an exclusive interview to the
Channel 6 news, in which he expressed remorse.  This is what the
anchor said]:   "said he was sorry for what he did and whished he had
to do it over again."

I howled.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU