HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Nea... a need!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:53:42 GMT

In article <711798888.1@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:
>     Dear Mr. Vessell,
>
>     You stated that even though the National Endowment for Arts (NEA)
>     accounts for less than 1 percent of our taxes that it is still a waste
>     of money.
>
>     You are terribly wrong, the NEA is an incredible investment.
>     Conisdering the cost, it is even more impressive.
>
>     You want to neatly spend each penny on a bare minimum concrete basic
>     need, but (pardon the idealism) are failing to remember the need to 
>     build & sustain the human spirit.

The human spirit is happiest when free from others' control.  The more
government-run programs to suck money away from the people at large,
the less they have a personal decision in how to use that money, 
and--hence--the less free and happy they are.

>     This is what a good culture does for its people.  Private funds should
>NOT be the only source.  Not because we merely need government to add to the
>volume of money but rather we need our governemnt to encourage the arts, 
>free thinking, free expression, etc.

There is no need for government to be involved in this.  A government
should settle differences between men, not run their lives.  The government
should *protect* the right to produce art, think freely, and speak freely,
but to collect money from everyone, give it to a little group of quasielected
officials, and let them decide how it's spent is folly.  This is not
like national defense or a space program.  It can be performed by private
organizations.  If your real concern is to get the art and ideas out,
and not to take money from people who disagree with art that clashes
with their morals, why don't you have the ACLU fund it through willing
donations, or create your own organization to promote art?

>     The NEA does this so well for so little.  Why do you think the
>     fundamentalist right-wingers want to control or kill the NEA???

While some may be true censors, wishing to stop the dissemination of
certain art, others merely wish that their own tax money not go toward
art they disapprove of.  I recall many liberals during the '60's express
the desire that their tax money not go to the Vietnam War.  This is no
different.

>
>     They know it is a great danger to them taking control of
> our lifes!!!
>
>     The NEA must live, so that Americans can live!
>
>     Boot out Anne-Imelda Radice (newly appointed Chair of the NEA, ordained by Bush), vote Clinton & save the NEA, & by doing so save your FREEDOMS!

Clinton wants bigger government and more Orwellian interference in our lives.
I can't support this.  Ideally, I'd like to see the Libertarian candidate 
win.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   "Laws against the carrying of arms disarm only the law-abiding."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: sgi
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 10:43:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.035317.67721@cs.cmu.edu>, jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
|> > hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|> > > Jon's just pissed off becasuse he knows the ecconomy is headed 
|> > > for the soup and theres no way Major and co can escape the blame.
|> > 
|> > Poor Phill.   So clueless.   The reality is that I bought Sterling
|> > futures after the election at around $1.75 and sold them a couple
|> > of weeks ago at around $1.88.
|> 
|> Remind me to add "Jon Livesey's portfolio value" to my list of
|> economic-indicators-to-watch.  It's always nice to have *one* line
|> going up when the rest of the chart is a solid downward trend, if only
|> for humor (sic) value.

You may, as they say, bet on it.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 20:33:47 EDT

In article <1992Jul27.164114.18537@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>> So maybe what we really need is for the SC to come out with a
>> definition of what they mean by the term "school agent". I can't
>> imagine by the most outrageous stretch of my fertile imagination how
>> they could possibly include students as "agents" of the school.
>> However, even if that's not what the SC intended, it's what some
>> school administrators are doing. I guess the only way to deal with
>> it (assuming that talking with the offending administrators doesn't
>> help) is to go after them in the courts.
>
>Yup.  My viewpoint may be a bit distorted by the fact that I'm a law
>student, but I don't see any problem with this approach.  It's what we
>have the courts for in the first place, after all.

I think your viewpoint *is* a bit distorted.  In an ideal world, individuals
should not have to put in a lot of energy, time, money, etc. (if any) in
order to defend their civil liberties.

(In this case, if prohibiting, say, a student speaker at a graduation from
mentioning God is, indeed, a violation of constitutional protections for
free speech, then it is certainly not desirable that an individual should
have to go to great lengths in order to defend that right to free speech.)

Of course in the real world, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Nonetheless, we should not confuse that which is inevitable with that
which is desirable.


>> I just don't fancy the idea of explaining to parents how their kids
>> won't be allowed to praise their gods until the completion of a
>> class-action suit.
>
>Actually, the act of explaining this to United States citizens is very
>simple.  You just point them to Article VI of the Constitution of the
>United States:
>
>       This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
>    shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
>    which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
>    shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
>    State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
>    Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
>
>Then ask them from where they got the idea that their gods or the laws
>thereof carried any legal authority in the United States...

You miss the point--the question is precisely one of what the *constitution*
says, not what anybody draws from their own religious principles.

-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6300 soc.culture.british:10675
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 26 Jul 92 12:51:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <nmbge9g@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
=>
=>Like I asked before, is this a special deal for politicians?
=>If an actor or athlete, perhaps one who endorses breakfast
=>cereal for little kids, is caught in bed with someone by a 
=>journalist up a tree with a camera, does this make the athlete
=>an 'idiot'?   Do we say s/he "should have known"?

No, it's not a special deal for politicians, it's a deal for everyone
who pushes themselves under the public eye, a prime example being
Pee-Wee Herman!

-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:03:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.045309.4748@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
[...]
>
>>it just affects you by pressing sexual buttons, which are not subject to
>>rational thought.
>
>Don't project your lack of control on the rest of us.  Believe it or not,
>most of us do not fear one day being unable to control or channel our urges.
>I find this statement insulting and untrue.  People who think it IS true
>scare me a bit, though.
>
	Yes, I've often suspected that the people who are the most vehement
about banning "pornography" and the most insistent about how viewing it will
turn us all into violent sex fiends are actually telling us something rather
profound about themselves.  Has any enterprising researcher actually
investigated this?  I know there's anecdotal evidence, but I can't place any
credence in that sort of thing.

>  Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick
>

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea - a need
Date: 24 Jul 92  23:46:00 EST

      Dear Mr. Vessell,

      Yes, you are correct, when you say art will continnue to exist, but flourish?  Under a government that either wants insane taste guidlines or is unwilling to at least make, in some small way, a positive example but encouraging the arts on its own.

     A good culture should have a good government, & both should be willing to help the arts.

     We as people do in fact have say in the NEA.  More often than not, a sucessful project continnues.  Those projects that are not are less likely to survive.  Also, by voting, one has very much to say.  I will vote against Bush knowing any change is almost certainly a change for the better.

     The NEA was fine until Jesse Helms needed a distraction to keep his people from thinking about the real problems our society is facing.

     You are incorrect in saying that the NEA reachs out to so few.  It helps many organizations survive that touch so many people.  Most often it is used for musical performences, arts exhibits, & to introduce our youth to art.  Without the NEA, these efforts would not happen.  SO MUCH FOR SO LITTLE!


                        Thank you for your time,

                        Professor Atget

                        aka, "The Honest Frenchman"


     "Everyone grows up to be a Liberal"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6233 soc.culture.british:10606
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:46:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul24.034654.63381
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
> In article <1992Jul21.123302.98021@cs.cmu.edu>, jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
> |> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
> |> > This makes no sense.   Quite often, experiencing something is 
> |> > *exactly* what you need to be a credible advisor to someone else.
> |> > 
> |> > Do you really mean that if I am caught shoplifting as a teenager,
> |> > I can't tell people later in life that it's a bad idea?
> |> 
> |> If you were a politician, and you included your experiences in your
> |> advice, you'd even get brownie points.  But if you *didn't* reveal
> |> them, *and* then took the moral high road on the issue, then in the
> |> current political climate you're being bloody stupid.
> 
> And it's the "current political climate" that I am talking about.
> Wasn't that obvious enough for you?

Yes.  I was pointing out that in the current political climate, Mellor
is a fool.  I couldn't care less what he does in his private life, or
anyone else's for that matter.  I *do* care that someone as idiotic as
him has some control, however minimal, over government policy. 

> What's going on at the moment, in the US and apparently in the
> UK as well, is that a good number of people have a prurient
> interest in the private lives of politicians and other public
> figures.
> 
> This is an absolutely lousy idea.   If you want politicians
> to feel uneasy about giving advice that they have not personally
> always followed, then leave that to them.

See first sentence of my first reply.

> Don't get the idea
> that you were put on this earth to police the private lives
> of other people, no matter what their job might be.

Hello?  Earth to Jon?  I'm not trying to police their private lives.
I'm rather interested in their apparent lack of intelligence, however.

> If you can't deal with that, then the consequences are very
> obvious: noone who has had an "interesting" private life is
> going to go in for public life, no matter what their talents
> might be, and even people who have led a fairly blameless private
> life will also refuse, rather than subject their families to
> the harassment of the Press.
> 
> Your choice.

Not my choice.  Talk to the Press barons.  When you're done with them,
go talk to the great unwashed British public.  When you're done with
them, come back and tell me it's my choice again.

Jonathan H., jch@cs.cmu.edu
From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: If Indianapolis were in Minnesota...
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:29:41 GMT
Distribution: alt.censorship
Organization: Dept of CS Ball State University Muncie In

An event has occurred in Indianapolis which strikes me as relevant to
the discussion about the striking of the St. Paul law by the Supreme
Court.

Tuesday night a cop was fired on by a black man, for no apparent reason
at an intersection.  The cop fired back back, and killed the man.

Evidently, the black man had just been listening to Ice-T's song "Cop
Killer".  

Ihe Indianapolis police department is stating loudly and publicly that
this song incites acts of violence against the police department.  Be-
cause there is no law such as the St. Paul law, they have no power to
ban the song, but it seems clear that they would if they could.

Granted, many people will point out that many facts of this case may
be hidden or unknown.  But given the current situation, and the facts
as they stand now, I am glad that there is no such thing as the St. Paul
law here.  I suspect that Mr. Nilges would be too, if he lived here.

Comments, Ed?

Joe  (Mays, not May, not that it's important)
From: hypes@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:59:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Surprise. You've made the evening news again.
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: alt.censorship

/ hpdmd48:alt.censorship / silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith) /  5:20 pm  Jul 12, 1992 /

*******************************
Furthermore, since the materials are nothing but sequences of
0s and 1s that are converted into something else at terminals, it is
actually questionable whether any net materials could be found illegal.
*******************************

...and since people are nothing more than collections of organic
compounds and bullets are just worked metal objects, why try to take
responsibility for anything?

- Gary Hypes -
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Nea... a need!
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:04:10 GMT

Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow) writes:

[ carriage returns!  Please remember to CR, or use wordwrap! ]

> You are terribly wrong, the NEA is an incredible investment.
>Conisdering the cost, it is even more impressive.

It might be if the money was given voluntarily, but it isn't.


> You want to neatly spend each penny on a bare minimum concrete basic
>need, but (pardon the idealism) are failing to remember the need to
>build & sustain the human spirit.

Nonsense, he's just saying that the government doesn't have to be the
one to do it.


> This is what a good culture does for its people.  Private funds
>should NOT be the only source.  Not because we merely need government
>to add to the volume of money but rather we need our governemnt to
>encourage the arts, free thinking, free expression, etc.

Whenever the government gets involved in the arts, or anything else,
it discourages free thinking, free expression, etc.


> The NEA does this so well for so little.  Why do you think the
>fundamentalist right-wingers want to control or kill the NEA???

They don't like it because of some of the art produced.


>     They know it is a great danger to them taking control of
> our lifes!!!

Oh bosh, there hasn't been one thing out of the NEA that would counter
them "taking control of our lives."  Even without the NEA you can go
out and buy a 2 Live Crew album and get the same effect.  They're just
pissed that their money is being spent on what they consider
blasphemous.


>     The NEA must live, so that Americans can live!

"Oh, gasp, NEA funding is being cut... everything is going black!
Gasp, choke!"  This is pure theatrics, and you know it.
-- 
Today is the first day of the rest of the mess.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: sgi
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 05:31:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.034654.63381@cs.cmu.edu>, jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
|> > 
|> > And it's the "current political climate" that I am talking about.
|> > Wasn't that obvious enough for you?
|> 
|> Yes.  I was pointing out that in the current political climate, Mellor
|> is a fool.

And I was pointing out that for people like Mellor to be "exposed",
the press has to be intrusive.   It has to practice cheque-book 
journalism and spend its time violating his private life, and
make a public issue of what is otherwise a private matter between
him and his wife.

|> I couldn't care less what he does in his private life, or
|> anyone else's for that matter.

If you really don't, then you perhaps you think that the man's
private life really is actually unconnected with his public life.

|> I *do* care that someone as idiotic as him has some control, 
|> however minimal, over government policy.

Oh, I get it.   His private life isn't important, except when
he falls foul of an intrusive and prurient Press and Public,
and then, because he ought to have known what they are like,
he's a fool, and 'idiotic', and *then* you have something on
him.

Like I asked before, is this a special deal for politicians?
If an actor or athlete, perhaps one who endorses breakfast
cereal for little kids, is caught in bed with someone by a 
journalist up a tree with a camera, does this make the athlete
an 'idiot'?   Do we say s/he "should have known"?

jon.

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: john@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (John Blasik)
Subject: Re: Penn State CENSORS my usenet!
Organization: We don't need no stinkin' batches!
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:14:30 GMT

The Velcro-Man! <DED110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>more liberal than some!  So, I now throw down the gauntlet and ask any and
>all of you netters out there to follow me to the fray!  Well, you don't really
>have to do that, but it would be nice if you could drop me some E-mail telling
>me any neat little techniques and tidbits you've learned about the usenet
>concerning reading, posting, FTP'ing, telnetting, etc. as long as it's in some


Here's a simple 4 step method.

  i) purchase a computer
 ii) purchase a modem
iii) purchase (or acquire free) news software
 iv) purchase (or acquire a free) news feed

-- john
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6194 soc.culture.british:10580
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:01:55 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
|> In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|> Who is Mellor?

A UK government minister.

|> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?

>It's not, but since the next election may not be for nearly
>another five years, the losers have to have something to
>complain about.  If they can't beat the government on its
>policies, they'll just have to attack it on its sex life.

No this is not at all what it's all about. It is the newspapers
that were slavish supporters of the re-election of Mellor's party
in the last election that are doing the dirty on him. The people
who lost the last election have kept quiet about it.

Can you think what it's really about?

Well, think about the state of the UK economy. The slump is
worsening - there is no sign of the recovery that has been
supposed to be just around the corner ever since 1988 when the
then Chancellor described the start of the slump as a "blip"
(large parts of the country, of course, had never got out of
the previous depression, so it was only a "blip" for teh
south-east in any case). Guess which newspapers spent the
entire election printing articles saying "recovery and
economic boom to come if you re-elect Major"? Yes, these were the
same newspapers which in the previous election told us to
vote for that same party on the grounds that it had given
us an economic miracle. The real miracle is that with the benefit
of North Sea oil coming on tap, and reductions in the
quality of basic services such as health, education and housing,
the British economy has still managed to underperform against
the rest of Europe. Only a uniquely incompetent bunch could
have managed this.

News yesterday was of massive cuts in government spending.
Funny, this seems to have been the news every year for the
past 15 years or so, and every time we're told that it's a
short term measure and we'll benefit in the long run. We're
still waiting.

Now, suppose you are a newspaper editor either enobled or
about to be enobled by the Conservative Party. What do you put
on the front page:

1) "Shock horror, Mellor caught bonking a bimbo"

or

2) "Shock horror, entire Conservative government shown to be a
   bunch of lying incompetents"

Tough luck, Mr.Mellor, that's politics.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6306 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3850 alt.rush-limbaugh:3118
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:29:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

[.....re arguments about the Guvmint cutting down public spnding projections]

>Labour is going to look very crazy indeed if they come right
>out and say "No, no!   Spend, spend, spend!   Borrow, borrow
>borrow!".

Indeed, but who *is* doing the borrowing and spending. Let's even assume
that the government forecast of a 28 billion PSBR is correct and it
doesn't turn out closer to 35 billion. When was the last time Labour
borrowed this much, even in real terms? The Tory Party still haven't
faced the fact that borrowing, public, corporate, and private is what
got us into this mess in the first place. They're too busy blaming
consumers.

>jon.

FoFP
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6234 soc.culture.british:10607