HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:33:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the oily slope of foreign policy

K=A*T:
>"U.S. arms sales in the region":  If there was no oil, there wouldn't
>      be any money to but the arms in the first place.
>"...matter of disciplining a puppet...":  Why would we want a puppet
>      there in the first place.  Could it be........because of oil?
>It seems to me oil was a major contributor directly AND indirectly.

A major contributor?  Certainly, I never denied that.  The point that
I was making was that it was not the sole defining principle of U.S.
foreign policy, which is what Gilbert seems to be asserting, based on
a poor sampling of actual cases (two, to be exact).

In the case of "wanting puppets", I doubt oil is a major factor in
deciding which two-bit dictators to support.  If there is a strategic
asset to be gained, regardless of the form it takes, be it oil, or
regional influence, or new markets for arms sales, that is enough for
the CIA to do it's work.

>--KAT

Gary W. Olson                  "Utah Saints, Utah Saints, Utah Saints,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU    U-U-U-Utah Saints!"
60 days and counting down...   - Utah Saints, "Something Good"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:26:28 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      homosexuality

Useless arguments and good counter-arguments deleted

>Your entire discourse leaves me somewhat speechless.  I am surprised to
>find such a total void of morality *even on this list*.  Your comments
>are a perfect representation of what's wrong with America.

The *FIRST* piece of my morality is "don't inflict your personality or
ideas on to people who do not want them." I guess I'm stunned by your
blasting away at what I believe to be an important moral value, and the
way you and many others seem to be blowing that away is exactly what I
find wrong with America, or at least some Americans.

What, so many people died in war so you could have the freedom to
oppress others?

>---Robert

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
 cop: (to priest) we're looking for a man, with robes, long hair
      and sandals. (cut to plate-glass mural of jesus)
 priest: i'm sorry. there hasn't been anyone in the church like that
      for a long time.
     --from the film "Gasssss"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:47:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

>
>Well, if we look to the work that's been done on non-human animals, we see
>two things that might bear on this issue.  First, for the vast majority of
>species, sex serves only one function -- reproduction.  In a few, sex
>serves as a mechanism promting social bonds.  In humans, of course, sex has
>become increasingly divorced from reproduction (and maybe even from social
>bonding), so we're much more complicated :)

    An interesting note in this is the observed role of homosexuality
   among non-human animals.  They appear to be the animals in the
    community that take care of the orphaned offspring, and also
   watch the young while the "parents" are away.

         --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:02:48 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:04:37 CDT fred said:

>I still don't understand how the education voucher will upgrade our
>ability to compete on a global scale. Can someone enlighten me?

Perhaps the education voucher provides the ability for poorer families
to attend private schools?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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, 8 Sep 1992 20:46:41 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: homosexuality

Dave:

Is Moeller worse than Dahmer?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

(This is an open-book, take-home test.)

--Missy P 2 B Back 2 School
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:30:02 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>> >Jamie, do separate-sex bathrooms in public buildings violate equal
>> >protection???
>>
>> No.
>
>Why not??  Don't I have as much right to go into a women's restroom as
>a woman??  Blatant sex discrimination, if you ask me.

First, you have your own bathroom, and it's just as good. So I don't
actually see any claim of discrimination.
Second, even if there is discrimination, there doesn't seem to be
any good prima facie case that it is invidious. What exactly is
the rationale for having different-sex public toilets? I don't know.
But it doesn't seem to have much to do with sexism.

Equal protection is a fairly serious matter. You don't seem to
think so. Maybe you haven't thought about it much.

>> If most Americans have some good argument that homosexuality is
>> immoral, then laws discriminating against homosexuality might pass
>> muster. But until that day, equal protection applies even to
>> homosexuals. Unless you can think of some good reason that it
>> doesn't?
>Why must most Americans have some good argument that homosexuality is
>immoral??

Because if they have no argument, then their "belief" is nothing more
than a prejudice, and equal protection means that laws may not
disadvantage some groups just because others harbor prejudice
against them.

>If most Americans believe homosexuality is immoral, it is
>immoral.

That certainly seems false to me. When most Americans believed
that slavery was moral, that didn't make it moral. Could you
explain yourself?

>If most Americans didn't believe murder were immoral, murder
>would not be immoral as pertains to our legal system.

What does "immoral as pertains to our legal system" mean?
I suppose if most Americans had no objection to murder (this
is difficult to imagine), then it wouldn't be illegal. But that
can't be Travis's point, can it?

>> >The 14th as well as the ninth gives you the right to ADVOCATE legal
>> >homosexuality, but not to practice it.
>> That's just silly. The 14th amendment says nothing about advocacy.
>> It's about equal protection, due process, and one or two other things.
>> Can you explain why you think that the ninth or 14th amendments are
>> about advocacy?
>The right to advocate something is free speech--gay rights groups have
>a Constitutional right to march on the state Capitol to demand repeal
>of sodomy laws, but they don't have a right to commit sodomy.

But what do the 14th and ninth amendments have to do with it?

People probably don't have a constitutional right to commit sodomy
(I think Joe would argue otherwise). But they do have a right not
to be disadvantaged by the prejudice of others.

Jamie
(someone tell me if I'm overstepping the bounds)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:47:52 CDT
From:         Good but Harmful <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

>No, brni:

>It is *always* bad to lie (bear false witness.)

>--Missy P 2 B

    "Mommy, where are we going?"
    "We're saying goodbye to Grandma."
    "Where's Grandma going."
    a) "Grandma's going into a box where she will be put 6 feet
        underground."
    b) "Grandma's going to heaven."

(According to Revelations, the decision between heaven and a lake of
 fire will be made after the second coming. No hell but that lake,
 according the the Bible.)

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:17:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: RE:Re:Bosnia Conflict

I heard on Newshour on the BBC tonight that they're thinking about
sending in the Ghurkas (check spelling), to guard the aid convoys.  They
also want to send them to Somalia.  There is a private company operating
out of Hong Kong that is doing the bookings now that Hong Kong is going
back to China and the Ghurkas are out of work.

I also noticed that it seems that it was the Bosnians who killed the two
French aid workers.  Of course, if the Serbians are catching the most
hell it is primarily because they have practically begged for it.

As for blame, the U.S. will have to take a lot of it, but the Europeans
are just as much to blame as the Americans.

                                                      Chris Morrison
                                                      CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:56:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

On Sat, 12 Sep 1992 11:01:08 EDT MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET said:
> Kerry:
>   Indirectly at least, I think what you have said is correct. The founders
> cannot be said to have wanted a country without a god. What they explicitly
> *did* want was a government which bent over backwards to stay out of
> religious expression in all its aspects. "..(not) recognize an establishment
> of religion" means that Congress must proceed without regard to religion,
> *as if* there were no such thing.
>   Of course this means that the tax exemptions for churches makes a mockery
> of the Constitution. The church must be treated like any other institution,
> since the amendment specifically forbids Congress from taking the religious
> character of churches into account. They may NOT *recognize* this aspect
> of the human activity called churches.
Well, churches can be considered non-profit charitable organizations.

> Regards,
> Michael
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:45:00 EDT
From:         DFIELD1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject: Re: getting blood from a turnip: an answer to kerry s.

Chris,

Forget about Cornell....people over on that hill are too uptight. Now,
Ithaca College....THERE'S A COLLEGE!!!!!!!!!!! (of course, I'm biased.)
=-)

Derrick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:07:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

>My secondary question is whether switching kids from public to private
>schools (absent other reforms) will really do anything to improve their
>educations.  As I said earlier, kids in private schools don't seem to do
>any better than their socioeconomic counterparts in public schools.  So I
>don't really see the point.


   The problem with education in this country is twofold.  First, the US
  has a tradition of disrespect toward education. This dates back to the
  times when children were needed on the farm and the upper class saw a
  lack of education as a mark of status (hard to believe, huh?) leaving
  only the then-small city-dwelling middle-class to give
  a hoot about the three R's.  The second problem is that in reviews
  of educational policy, the government has failed to go to the root,
  which is the way people learn.  Right now, we're stuck with a system
  which doesn't work, because it does not concern itself with how
  a child learns, but only with how to teach as many children as
  possible.  Hence we are left with factory-style "education".
  Until we rethink our entire approach to education, we'll continue to
  have problems without solutions in sight.

>Kerry

G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:14:12 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      My ballot

 I vote for you Fred.

 ---Robert

 "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:13:54 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Vitriol & boiled eels in broth, Mother

 *** Resending note of 09/09/92 12:47

 >Robert, do you like to whup on darkies too?  By your own reasoning,
 >'scripture' gives you every justification to do so.
 ...stuff deleted
 >                                           Walker on Earth

 WOE is you,

 You mean that I've been missin' out on all that fun, whuppin on the
 darkies?  Dang!

 It may surprise you to know that Jesus was quite probably of the darker
 persuasion.  This semi-white boy has nothing against our darker brethren,
 just the misapplication of law and misinterpretation of the Constitution
 sometimes connected with their past discrimination.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:06:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Wow an old-fashioned flame war.  I'm glad I kept my fire-proof skivies
when I went off the nets last time.  I guess we'll all get another few
copies of Politics-l rules in our mailboxes again now.

Hit the dirt, everybody!  Incoming mail!

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:13:53 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              11 Sep 1992 08:18:15 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:18:15 -0400 <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU> said:

>Actually, KAT asserted that, not me :)  For what it's worth, the "GI Bill"
>Bush proposed did, I hear, have a "means test" -- and I recall hearing that
>the cut-off for eligibility would be in the $40K range.  Seems pretty
>reasonable to me to think that folks in the upper part of the eligible
>income range would have a better chance of actually using the vouchers for
>their stated purpose than would folks in the low end.


But the means test wasn't asserted as the reason the rich would be
favoured, just simply the existence of vouchers.  Rather than worry about
a means test or quantity of assistance available, I'm more curious about
whether the principle of private school vouchers and their merits.  Not
unlike the story of the philosopher offering the girl money to sleep
/c him?  If it is not considered reasonable, then the means & amount
are unnecessary.  If it's considered doable, then let's discuss the details.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:49:51 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: who loves you baby?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:02:19 CDT fred said:

>Macphil, why should I pay for your child to attend a private school
>when I can't afford the same priviledge for my own child? It is a
>very republican attitude to say "Let's just do it and not talk about
>who is going to foot the bill". As far as distribution of wealth is
>concerned, I am in favor of redistribution of the tax load, not of
>income. I think that everyone should be taxed once a year on their
>assets with no loopholes.

>Why shouldn't the 2 percent of the population that controls 90 per
>cent of the assests pay 90 per cent of the tax bill? Why wouldn't
>that be fair since everyone would be treated equally according to
>how big their piece of the pie is?

But the problem /c that scheme is it penalizes those who manage to
accumulate it.  If I risk money in financial ventures that pay off
over time, I'm penalized for accumulating it for my future rather
than when it is earned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:01:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)

>While we're on the subject -- Dunstan is also right that consumption is
>part of the problem.  And U.S. citizens consume something like 30% more per
>capita than folks in other countries.  So a simple body count is
>insufficient.

    I agree that consumption is a problem along with overpopulation.
  The question is, how do we solve the problem?  It is necessary to
  realize that here in the US, people like to oveconsume.  Even compared
  to European countries, with a standard of living at least comparable to
  ours, we guzzle just about every resource we can get our hands on --
  fossil fuels, water, food, etc.  In other parts of the world, like
  Mexico, the problem is reversed -- too many people, not enough resources
  (or at least not enough ability to utilize and distribute the
  resources).  The problem there is that the RC Church has placed itself
  firmly against family planning (even to the point where the Pope
  condemned contraception in his speech in Mexico City).

>Kerry

G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:47:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful
              7 Sep 1992 13:15:35 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

But KAT:

The harm involved in doing what is "bad" is not always readily apparent.
How do we decide whether there are unforseen harmful consequences to
any given activity?  It would be nice to have the long-term perspective
that a proper application of Richard's scheme implies, but it is not
realistic to assume that we do.

Suppose I can lie without anyone getting hurt?  Is it then not "bad"
to lie?



--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:33:08 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Speaking of morality and religious codes, I find
that the Wiccan idea "an it harm none, do what thou wilt"
is about the simplest and best in the world.

The harming none part includes an awful lot of things,
but it is true.

I suppose that one could even say that Jesus taught the
same thing when he gave out the Golden Rule.

If this were to be the basis of morality and whatnot,
then homosexual marriages would be more than acceptable
legally.  Whom are they hurting?  Would they hurt
heterosexual couples?

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:55:33 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      peter schledorn, where are you?????

this is a message for peter...sorry, but i can't find his e-mail
address...
peter, darling, light of my life, can you send me another copy of the
buchanan speech?  xxx ooo   + + +anneliese
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:37:34 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Hi, Missy J:
>You state that "revealed truth isn't available to the public at large."
>I cannot imagine where you could have gotten this idea (except perhaps
>in college).

I can't speak for Jamie, but if *I* had written that line, it would have
meant that direct revelation is unavailable to most of us.  What we *do*
have access to is various writings (including the Bible, the Koran, etc.)
of the folks to whom the revelations were granted.  Depending on the book
we look to, we are anywhere from one to several "steps" removed from the
truth as experienced by the relevant prophet.

And now I can say "mea culpa" as well :)  No more theology for this kid, at
least for a while.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:11:17 EDT
From:         k=a*t <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: let's rephrase the question

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> ......................................  Somehow we have begun to
> believe that marriage is somehow about having sex, rather than
> contributing to the continuation of society.  ..................

Tell this to those people who insist sex outside marriage is
sin.

Let's see.  We cannot have sex before marriage and during it
we should not enjoy or focus on it.

Sex is "bad", therefore sex is "harmful" ??      :-)

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:07:20 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: who(M) do you trust

>On Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:51:00 CDT fred said:
>>At least Bill Clinton will admit that he avoided vietnam, and if evidence
>>surfaces that he had help, he will admit to that as well. There is some

>He will admit it when confronted /c unimpeachable evidence.  Until the
>correct question is phrased properly and he stands to lose the election
>from it, he will admit to nothing and will not fall on his sword.  Look
>@ how much admitting he's done so far:  none.

I suppose that's a fairly common phenomena; you haven't heard the
administration blowing its horn about the draft record of Dick
Cheney, now have you?


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

Yes MacPhil, and it's always the evil of two lessers that we contemplate
come election time.

>MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:04:12 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Pennies from Heaven

To Robert:

In all seriousness, if we DID give 1/4 of a cent to put the Bible in the
classroom, who's doctrine would we follow?

    Would we allow discussion of the Virgin Mary?
    Would the Mormon view of taking more than 1 bride be taught?
    Would we allow healings?
    Could we have a tele-conference with Jim Bakker?

Please help.  I just don't understand!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU