HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:01 PST
Subject: HUMAN NEEDS: Was Nicaragua More Dem
Nf-ID: #N:9211191100.AA09984@tba.msi.corne:-1184302664:000:2262
Nf-From: math.cornell.edu!harelb    Nov 19 03:01:00 1992


Subject: HUMAN NEEDS: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)

HUMAN NEEDS: Was Nicaragua More Democratic than the U.S.?

[From:
       ========================================================
       I s   N i c a r a g u a   M o r e   D e m o c r a t i c
       ========================================================
            T h a n   t h e   U n i t e d   S t a t e s ?
       ========================================================
                        By Michael Parenti (*)

[From: Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 26, Summer 1986]]

=====================
H u m a n   N e e d s 
=====================

        [See especially Oxfam America's 1984 report on development in]
   -->  [Nicaragua, available under OXFAM84 NICARAG with the GET     ]
   -->  [command from the archiver, and the file FSLN ACHIEVE, a     ]
        [documented account (statistics, reports, etc) of some of the]
        [achievements -- some superlative -- of the revolution       ]

If democracy means more than a set of procedures but implies
something, about the substantive conditions of life, then here too
poor Nicaragua looks better than rich America in the era of Ronald
Reagan. Decades of colonialism, Somocista pillaging, earthquake,
revolution and counterrevolution, have left Nicaragua with a legacy of
extreme poverty, yet the very worst is not happening to the poor
citizens of that country as it is to the poor on the streets in
Washington D.C.; no one is starving and no one has been tossed aside
like so much human refuse.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   -->  [Send the 1-line message GET FAIRNESS NICA-USA ACTIV-L to]
        [LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET for a copy of this file.         ]

   -->  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]
        [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]

        [To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are ]
        [two words  separated by a space), send the 1-line message: ]

   -->  GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

        to: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.BITNET [or: LISTSERV@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.correct
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: Heterosexual AIDS 
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 22:36:53 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Nov23.181243.9865@leland.Stanford.EDU> jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul) writes:

>>>And of the hetro people affected most will be heterosexual women
>>>(women have a much larger risk of contracting aids from men
>>>than men from women).

That's a relief! As long as it doesn't affect us heterosexual
republican white men, who cares?
:-)

>>That is why AIDS will not reach epidemic proportions in heterosexual
>>populations. It's too unlikely for women to pass it on.

I wish I had such confidence. Then I would know to tell those
5,983 American men who contracted AIDS (not HIV, AIDS) from
sex with women that they are, well, just statistical aberrations.

>Exactly.  In 1984 the WHO predicted some ungodly number of AIDS
>infections, like 100 million or something, by 1990.  Needless to
>say that hasn't happened.

Been to Uganda lately? Zaire? How `bout Burma or Thailand?
The rates of heterosexual AIDS there might open your eyes,
if not give you a heart.

>I am in a monogomous, heterosexual relationship.  My wife and I
>have never and will never use intravenous drugs not administered
>by a health care professional.  I take AIDS seriously, but because
>of my behaviour I have an infinitessimally small chance of getting
>it (I'd more likely be struct by lightning).
>
>$4 billion is enough for AIDS research.  Other people with other
>diseases are suffering, too.  Any more money for AIDS would take away
>from research in other important areas.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't give a damn about muscular
dystrophy, or cystic fibrosis, or the problems of premature
infants, because, well, I'm not at risk for those things.

Hope you're proud of yourself.

Brian
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Some sad news from Colorado
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:45:48 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <13260@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.200958.8885@pixel.kodak.com>, chuck@fourier.ssd.kodak.com (Charles S. Collins 726-9461) writes:
># Steve-- I happen to be a member of Downtown United Presbyterian in
># Rochester, the church which was recently told by the denomination that
># it could not call an openly lesbian pastor, Janie Spahr of San Francisco.
>
>Is she the lesbian pastor that admitted that she filed a false 
>police report in San Francisco about being attacked by homophobes?
>That she made the whole thing up to get sympathy for the cause?

No, she isn't, jerk.

And I suppose that was an innocent question with no innuendo attached, eh?
When *did* you stop beating your wife?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:58:22 GMT

In article 19583@athena.mit.edu, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to talk.politics.misc].
>
>In article <1992Nov10.040046.29049@anasazi.com>, 
>john@anasazi.com said:
>
>> > No term limits means that you can re-elect the guy if he's not a
>> > bozo.  If the guy is a bozo, then you just vote him out. What's so
>> > hard about that? I'll tell you, it means the voters have to take
>> > responsibility.  [Bri Farenell]
>>
>> No, let me tell you. It is the advantages of incumbency. The
>> incumbent can use your tax dollars and mine to make himself look
>> like the best candidate. Furthermore, with the seniority system, the
>> longer you keep him in office, the better able he is to bring home
>> pork to your state at the expense of other states. Term limits help
>> even out the playing field.
>
>I disagree... term limits merely ban one player from the playing
>field; there is no leveling effect.
huh?  incumbant vs. non-incumbant ==> non-incumbant vs. non-incumbant!
that is certainly a "leveling effect".

>
>If you think that the current system is riddled with abuses, the
>proper solution is to put forth, and support, proposals which reduce
>or eliminate those abuses.<*>  Term limits don't do that; all they do
>is take away from the voters the right to cast a valid vote for the
>candidate of their choice.  That isn't democracy.
being that there is no groundswell of support to repeal the 22nd 
on grounds of democratic principle, i would say that the democratic
principle argument is totally bogus.

>
><*>For example: A line-item veto and/or mandatory procedural rules of
>   legislation that make it more difficult for unrelated laws and
>   appropriations to be tacked together on the same bill.  The
>   abolition of the franking privilege.  The overhaul of the senority
>   system.  The removal of any and all ballot-access barriers.  Laws
>   regarding the use of taxpayers' money for personal or campaign
>   purposes, with a permanent Independent Prosecutor and staff -- with
>   teeth -- to enforce it.
good stuff too.  lets do it all.  i can't see what people are so afraid
of?  term limits are completely insignificant when compared with the
day-to-day impacts of the 18th amendment. 



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,bit.listserv.politics,alt.activism
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:13:56 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <92319.105417DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
]Will you also note that the current definition of poverty in the U.S.
]understates poverty because it indexed the poverty line to the CPI, yet the
]cost of necessities have increased at a rate faster than the CPI?
]As a result, some studies indicate that the U.S. poverty line for a
]family should be over $20,000, not under $15,000 as it is currently.

On the other hand, since the poverty statistics do not include financial
or in-kind aid, the greatly overstate the amount of poverty in the country.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61400 alt.politics.elections:24269 soc.culture.usa:8645
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Report says no evidence of 'October surprise' plot
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:19:03 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

Lifted out of clari.news.politics w/o permission.



	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee reported
Monday it had found no credible evidence that officials of Ronald
Reagan's 1980 campaign tried to make a deal with Iran to delay the
release of U.S. hostages until after the election.
	Allegations of such an effort have been circulating for several
years, most involving the late Bill Casey, who was Reagan's 1980
campaign chief and later director of the CIA.
	Focus on the allegations increased in 1991, prompting both the House
and Senate to order special investigations. The House report is expected
before the end of the year.
	The report submitted by a special counsel to the Senate Foreign
Relations subcommittee concludes ``there is not sufficient evidence'' to
support the allegations that the Reagan campaign tried to delay the
release of the hostages in order to damage President Carter's re-
election bid.
	The 52 hostages, who had been taken when the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
was stormed by Iranian militants, were released in January 1981, just as
Reagan was about to be inaugurated.
	The report said the individuals who were the primary sources for the
allegation ``have proven wholly unreliable.''
	``Their claims regarding alleged secret meetings are riddled with
inconsistencies, and have been contradicted by irrefutable documentary
evidence as well as by the testimony of vastly more credible witnesses,''
the 150-page report said.




Follow-ups set to talk.politics.misc.




-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Communist Agenda's (Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths 
Summary: Bull   
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:00:45 GMT

In article <By5Lr0.My1@lincoln.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
>In article <1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>>In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes...
>>>In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>>>>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>Arguments concerning the alleged population problem usually center
>>>around the myth of finite resources.
>Only for those preoccupied with the physical and without the
>slightest concern for efficiency.

Oh, really. Are you saying that the world is an infinite place? Are you
saying that the world can hold an infinite number of people? 
Get a clue. Everything is finite. If you can name anything, and I do
mean ANYTHING, that has unlimited quantities, then start talking.
> 
>>>Of course, those who push the population problem usually have an
>>>agenda which requires it. For example, many leftists are weded to
>>>the idea of controlling population because it is a convenient
>>>bridge to controlling people, generally.
>>
>>I think you are on to something now. It's all a communist PLOT!
> 
>If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...

I love these flashbacks to the 50's. "Paranoia, self-destroyer"
> 
 Nothing this century has exacerbated the
>misery of the third world like the practice of socialism.
> 
Except for hard-line, right-wing dictators that like to kill their own
people.
> 
>In article <By11EL.7Gq@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>>I get it.  This is one of those parodies of Nazi-Holocaust revisionism, where
>>you deliberately say stupid things to point out how stupid the Nazi-Holocaust
>>revisionists are, right?  I don't know, there were two better (IMHO) ones
>>posted to rec.humor.funny in the last few months, but I encourage you to submit
>>this one in case Brad or Maddi plan to make a collection.
> 
>If only life were so simple that the simple minded stood a fair chance
>in intellectual combat.

The simple-minded are usually the most dangerous people (ie puritan
witch-hunts, McCarthyist red-baiting, ect.). That's why you are one of
the most scary of people to me.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,misc.legal
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:51:59 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>There was no crime he was accused of.  This is no different than if
>Anita Hill went and testified that Clarence Thomas should not be
>confirmed because he's stupid.

Hill going to Congress and saying that Thomas is stupid is one thing - its
an opinion. Hill going to Congress and stating that Thomas made rude sexual
advances towards her is another matter entirely - its attempting to define
an alledged action.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60435 alt.politics.elections:23946 alt.politics.clinton:17275 alt.politics.democrats.d:582
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d
Subject: Re: Morally Right (Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:28:55 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov13.215545.13729@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:

|>      I prefer to stay away from any religious discussion, but I never
|>discount Jesus just becuase he is religious. I re-thought what I posted
|>last night and decided that you can't legislate morality, so therefore
|>I withdraw my comment from before. But to withhold help from someone who
|>needs it, cannot be morally defended.

Agreed, but neither should it be legally required.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60672 ca.politics:9638
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:00:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov12.223648.28863@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>>>> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>># #Shall I repost the many postings from soc.motss trying to justify
>>># #adults having sex with 12 and even 8 year olds?

>>># 	Don't have to.
>>># 	There are people here in this newsgroup that find it acceptable
>>># 	to be sexually attracted to 11 year old girls...

>>>There are?  They are pretty depraved, aren't they?

>>That sort of depends.  Do they have a choice, or is it
>>biological/hereditary?  If it's b/h, then no, they aren't depraved.

>	"Mr Nieport, I sure would like to out with your 11 year old
>	daughter... and maybe fuck her!"

>	"My god, you are a PERVERT!  Get out of here!"

>	"Actually, no.  It's biological/hereditary..."

>	"Hmmm... sorry my mistake.  Be back by eleven"

If you had a brain, you'd read what I wrote.  "Depraved," to me, implies
that you've chosen to do something sick and perverted.  If your
attraction to young girls is not your choice, I don't think it's
"depraved."  That doesn't mean that I'd favor allowing people to *act*
on that attraction.

>>Now, if they actually molest 11 year old girls, then they should be
>>jailed.  But to be *attracted* to 11 year old girls?  That isn't depraved,
>>necessarily, no.

>	yeah, right.
>	Add one more to the list...

Like Clayton, you seem to have a tough time distinguishing between an
orientation and an action.  

The attraction is probably not under the person's control, which means 
there isn't anything wrong with it.  *Acting* on that attraction is wrong.

What list?  The list of people who are capable of something besides a
knee-jerk reaction to a question?  Or is it "people who disprove
Clayton's gay-bashing child molestation theory?"  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60826 sci.econ:8754
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:37:55 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <92322.195839DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.131926.5633@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu
>>(Stupendous Man) says:
>>>
>>>In article <92321.103319DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>>
>>>> In article <1992Nov15.223328.5620@desire.wright.edu>,
>>>demon@desire.wright.edu
>>>> (Stupendous Man) says:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see no evidence that the increase in inequality during Reagan's terms
>>>> did raise the long-term growth rate of GDP.
>>>
>>>        The growth rate improved from 2.6% during the 70s (actually
>>1973-1982)
>>>to 3.5% (1983-1990).  WWII-1972 was 3.6%.  Certainly the affect was to raise
>>>the GDP growth rate.  It's even more impressive when you realize that this
>>>growth was achieved during the most intensive period of global competition
>>>ever.  A lot of the post WWII growth in GNP was largely because no one else
>>>was around to sell.
>>
>In addition to the selection bias I mentioned, I also would like to
>know how you identified the major changes in policy made by Reagan,
>in particular, the supply-side tax cuts, as the major source of any changes
>in macro-economic performance (income growth, mobility, or whatever).  Why
>don't you credit Volcker's Fed policies? Or the fiscal stimulus applied by
>increasing entitlements and the military build-up?  What techniques did you
>use to isolate the effect of supply-side policies versus the effects of
>monetary policy versus the effects of fiscal policy?
>
>In truth, Brett, do you think any macro-economic theory explains reality
>well enough to draw the kinds of conclusions you are drawing?
>I think we both know that the changes in the 1980s were generated by a complex
>set of forces, including all those mentioned above.  I don't think any of
>us here on the net (nor any trained macroeconomists) can really identify
>the independent effects of each.


	The last two paragraphs represent *valid* arguments, and indeed
one might suspect that within the halls of Congress, all those Keynesian
geniuses knew all along what the eventual impact of massive deficit spending
would be...slower growth at higher *real* interest rates. 

	But it didn't matter, they kept on passing those appropriations
bills, anyhow. Imagine their surprise when the financial institutions of
the United States (indeed, the entire world) proved unable to bail THEM 
out in the end.


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:16:54 EST
From: <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Go see "X"!

  Today is the opening of the 3 hour 20 minute epic, "X" starring Denzel
Washington.  I think that it is important that people go see this movie
about the life of one of the most intriqing people in the 20th century.  His
many changes througout his life, from pimp to prisoner to racist to tolerant
man is fascinating.  I think it is important for people to study the man and
see why he is a hero for the young Blacks today (and some of the older ones).
A lot of us are too young to remember him while he was alive, and this movie
will help to go understanding him.  Of course the best way to learn about him
is through his autobiography, but go see the movie.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61071 alt.politics.elections:24189 alt.rush-limbaugh:10075
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rum
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:18:38 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.

In article <1992Nov19.012642.7252@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

Non-oracular Friedman explains:
>
>Bullshit.  I take great glee in following these charges where they
>lead.  

>>the only motivation I can see here is the
>>shameful one of slander and calumny. 
>
>Actually, I'm enjoying watching people like you squirm.
>

Thus speaks the guttersnipe from the gutter.  I have better
things to do than pursue this further.

Norman Miller
nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: rex@iqsc.COM (Rex Black)
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Organization: IQ Software Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:06:56 GMT

Tad Dowe writes:
>If defense spending were to be cut in half, it would not make any significant
>change in the deficit. Now, if welfare and medicare were treated equally, the
>deficit could be reduced in no time.

Partisan name-calling notwithstanding, neither Clinton nor Bush provided
any concrete, courageous plans for attacking entitlements like Social 
Security and Medicaid, which are the real sources of the debt explosion.
Both Republicans and Democrats use this "guns vs. butter" canard to
obscure the fact that without a serious attack on entitlements, esp.
Social Security, no progress will be made.  

Rex
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61243 alt.sex:37090 ca.politics:9786