HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Media Violence (was Re: Oscar Revulsion)
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:02:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

OK.  Most of the people here agree that there is way too much violence in
the movies and on TV.  I don't think it takes a great leap of logic to say
that all this violence must have some type of negative psychological effect on
the American psyche.  I think there are really two issues that have to
be addressed:

	1) Is the effect a serious enough threat to our society that
	some action should be taken?

	2) If any, what action should we take?

My opinions:

I don't believe that societies' violence and the media's portrayal of violence
have a very strict cause and effect relationship.  Saying that the media
has no effect on us psychologically would be naive, but at the same time,
I don't believe I'm going to become a serial killer or mass rapist from 
watching movies.  I think the two have a mutual relationship.  The media
makes an attempt to portray what is happenning in our society, and thus
influences some of the same people they are trying to portray.  In other
words, we have created a spiral which might be rather difficult to break out
of.

As far as the solution, I can't say I can think of one.  We could put a limit
on what type of violence may be shown, but there is already enough 
censorship in our society as it is.  In my opinion, I think some violence is
necessary to show the reality of life as we know it.  However, I think many
artists have stepped over the line in order to glorify that violence, and
not to portray reality.  I will, however, readily admit that my taste in
art is different from many.  So what do we do?  Rating systems on movies
don't seem to do much.  When I was under 17, it was an easy thing to get
into any movie I wanted to see.  Besides, there is enough violence on
prime time TV to keep our children going for years.

Any suggestions?  How is the problem handled in other cultures?  Are there
many other cultures with a similar problem? (If indeed, it is a problem)

-Jon Anderson


  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  
  Jon Anderson                                      jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu
      "Won't you look down upon me Jesus, you gotta help me make a stand,
       You've just got to see me through another day.
       My body's aching and my time is at hand,
       And I won't make it any other way. "                 -James Taylor
  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: rtang@sunee.waterloo.edu (He who must not be Named.)
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:34:20 GMT

In article <WARKENT.92Apr15113833@ltisun9.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Charles E Thorne wrote:
>>>Western Europe as well doesn't allow their former workers to become citizens
>>>unless they're European by birth.
>
>This is not true for France, where anyone who is legally resident
>has the right to become, and is officially considered as, a French citizen.
>--
>Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
>                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.

Define legally resident, please.
Also does your statemnet mean, that if some one is 
a legal resident, (I am using it in your terms), that he/she
automatically is a citizen, apon first entry into the country.
Is there no waiting period, etc etc, there's got to be more.

Ray
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 92 11:48:27 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:         Explenation of US crap
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa

The term revolt has been misinturpreted.  Granted the Civil War was a
revolt and rebellion.  My point was NOT to suceede or overthrow the
government.  The people on the frontier thaught the whiskey tax was
unfair, since it was a large part of their industry, and that they
were not being acknowledged in Congress; so, they revolted, not attempting
to overthrow.  The Shae rebellion in Mass. just after the Rev. War was
about the too high taxes.  Later in history, the farmers went to arms.
After each rebellion, the government tried much harder to make wise
decisions for the people, not for the government.  This was my point.
From: bcushman@lust.reed.edu (Ben Cushman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: A news bit from Australia
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:10:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr7.031050.10172
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR



            News from "The Advertiser" (Adelaide) 4-4-92
"Police raid factory"- Sydney: Police yesterday raided a Chester Hill
factory which they beleive may have been storing ozone-destroying goods.
   In the raid, a squad of police seized several pallets of goods. The
company, Farnell Electronic Components Pty Ltd, could face charges.
---------

	Now, America, why can't we engage in this kind of constructive  
police raid-- rather than wasting out efforts enforcing a Prohibition and  
the problems that arise from it.  Maybe we should learn from our history,  
especially the 1920's, so we don't replace alcohol with crack-- keeping  
our social problems intact.
	
						Ben Cushman
						Reed College
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.china
From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: Don't be misled!!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.020832.22940@medsys.rn.com> bbs@medsys.UUCP (Public BBS System) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.090623.10819@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>
>>Not that the Nationalists weren't corrupt, because they were, but
>>"Liberation"?  Yes, Mao really liberated China.
>>
>
>That is correct. During the Great Leap Forward period, twenty million
>Chinese were liberated from this world to heaven.
>
>Chou1

For the first seven years after the " Liberation " , China enjoyed one
of the highest economic developement in the world , at the time . For
this reason the population was expanding  ,  which was worried by 
Professor Ma Yen Cu .  But in 1957 ,  rounds of struggles began to 
happen , which finaly led to the horrible "Revolution" .

I hope people here can discuss the past according to what they were ,
not what they are supposed to be . Contexts couldn't be ignored ,
otherwise , too hasty conclusions would be made . That is why it is 
fairer to appraise an issue , some time after its happening .

From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 07:05:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler, the great german
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa


Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:2886 soc.culture.celtic:3481
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Manifest Destiny (Was :Re: 200 years of Peace and
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:19:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.140226.7622@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (B-rent) writes:
>> But it wasn't ours to begin with.  The Oregon territory was claimed by 
>> US, Britain, and Russia.  Russia finally decided it was too far away to
>> bitch about and gave up their claim.  It was not owned by the United States.
>> It was not part of the United States.  The Oregon territory was jointly
>> claimed by both US and Britain.  Britain had a legitimate claim to it and
>> that is why they ended up with half.
>>
> Right, but in this case the British did not want to even give up 'half.'
> I believe America's 'Legitimate Claim' was the L. Purchase.  I think
> I remember an overlap, but am not sure (no old-map text nearby).  Anyway
> I would like to see a deeper historical probing of it.  I think I
> remember (dredge WAY back now...) something about negotiations with the
> British about it ... can someone help me out with this?
>  
> Brent Irvine						irvine@ecn.purdue.edu 
>  

We didn't want to give up half either... hence 54'40" or fight...

Yes the L. Purchase did overlap but not to the extent that US could claim
all the way north to 54'40".  In anycase a treaty was signed... 1848 I think
and it set the northern boundary where it is today... 

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|  "It is good fortunes for politicians that people don't think."- A. Hitler  |
|                       Aoibheann beatha an scol/aire!                        |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:23:04 GMT

In article <yjqj5+q.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.181658.10298@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>
>(stuff deleted)
> 
>>About Americans and Canadians, stop thinking that we are your carbon copy
>>when it suits you and thinking of us as the new ennemy when it suits
>>you too... (free trade, says something to you? no?  Honda cars built
>>in Canada? lumber? pork?)
>
>Well, what are you saying?  I'm against free trade, cutting down trees,
>and wouldn't drive a stinking Honda if it were the last car in the world.
>I think all the pork we eat in California comes from this state, though
>I am not sure of this one.  It might disapoint you to know that most
>Americans think very little of Canada one way or the other.  For my own

Well, I should have extended on the subject. About Honda cars, lumber and
pork, they are 3 canadian products being unfairly taxed by your government.
This is recognized by the non-chauvinist economists of your country.

You should be for the free trade, because right now, many Canadians think
they are being eaten alive by Americans.

And about what Americans think of Canada, I sincerly don't care, I'm
sorry, so I'm not disappointed...
If I begin to care about what the others think of me, or my province, or
my country, my life would be a living hell...

>>I have nothing personal, but I would like the general attitude of
>>the american nation to change...
>
>Well, distinguish between the government and the people, please.

Who elects the government???    :)

When I spoke about "Americans", well, I meant the American nation as
a whole...


Sylvain Chamberland
schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu


Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: War and National Interests (was Re: U.S. Role in the world)
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:49:17 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Apr15180905@crane.cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>For those who argue that American foreign policy decisions are made on
>a purely pragmatic basis, explain why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia
>during the arab oil embargo?  From a military standpoint it wouldn't
>have been that difficult -- I'm sure Israel would have been willing to
>supply us with a staging area. 

	Possibly because the Soviet Union would get involved.

>				 From a political standpoint, though,
>it would have been difficult (though probably not impossible) to
>prevent the action from appearing completely self-serving.
>
	Also, the U.S. was war-weary after the Vietnam defeat.
From: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: U.S. Role in the world (was Re: Canada and the U.S.)
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:54:22 GMT
Reply-To: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Apr14.165036.10124@midway.uchicago.edu>
mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>But my understanding of the East Timor invasion is that we chose _not_
>to protest or intervene to stop it, not that we actively participated
>in it.  I agree this is wrong, but it's also what you're advocating as
>a broad US policy.

The West (including the US) supplies arms to the Indonesian govt.
That, to me, is intervention. Do you feel better because your
country didn't protest? Why did it protest over Kuwait, Grenada, Korea,
Vietnam,... Promotion of democracy? Bullshit.

>>Not only that. Your government has given it favoured nation status.
>>Which just goes to show that justice, freedom, etc. take second place
>>to the US's economic/strategic interests.
>
>True.  (Though unlike the UK, we _haven't_ handed it a few million more
>people.)  And the US, the UK and Canada, among others, all had MFN
>relations with the former governments of Poland, Czechslovakia, and
>Romania.  Not to mention Pinochet's Chile, Yugoslavia, and South Africa
>(though I presume the last was suspended during the sanctions).  While I
>disagree with my government's stance on China's trade status, granting
>MFN status (which simply means that any trade concessions given to
>another nation must also be given to the MFN) does not imply approval
>of its government-- unless you're of the opinion that the UK and Canada
>approved of Ceaucescu, Pinochet, and Tito.  Hell, the UK had MFN with
>Argentina at the time of the Falklands war, yet we presume that the
>two countries did not approve of one another.

I'm not saying that Canada and the UK are any better. But just because
other countries do it doesn't make your position any more valid.

Obvisouly Pinochet had MFN status with you guys - you put him there!

>>>But I'll still
>>>maintain that the US comes out, in the end, as a positive factor
>>>in world history.
>
>>For you.
>
>And for you.  I don't think you would be posting from a .uk address
>if the US had remained isolationist and neutralist this century.

Don't be so dramatic! I'm only studying here anyway. I'm Canadian.

I'm not denying the US
played a major role in thwarting Hitler (although you guys didn't get
involved until fairly late) but that doesn't justify all your covert
post-WWII crap. Just admit the US did it for economic/hegemonistic
reasons and I'll be satisfied. What's wrong with admiting the US acts
imperialistically? Every generation has had one or more countries which
have had a go at dominating the world. The next two are Germany and Japan.
Ironic when you think that only about 50 years ago...

Innes
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:47:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Adolf Hitler, the great german
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: prabhak@cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Caterpillar and the Issue of Unions
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:02:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr16.140246.6484
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

I have been following the struggle between Caterpillar and
the unions over the last coupla weeks. I seem to be drawn to
Caterpillar's side in the ongoing dialectic, albeit with the
suspicion I do not understand all the issues present therein.
I will present some of my thoughts here and would appreciate
if others have any comments to put things in perspective.

Power of the Unions: A company exists to make a profit
for its stakeholders. The well-being of employees, and
other constituents is subordinate to the welfare of the
stockholders; this has been established by case law,
particularly in takeover cases. While the consitution of
US allows the right of association, it does not give the
right to unions to take companies hostage. I think it
is unfair to expect companies to succumb to the union
demands and conditions such as patterned bargaining. The
companies should have some ability to say "NO" in the
best interests of its shareholders or owners. The bill 
under consideration that denies companies' right to
permanently replace striking workers makes companies andtheir
shareholders essentially impotent in dealing with striking
employees. I support Bush in vetoing this legislation.

Why should there be a union, anyway? In a free market, and
America is a glowing example of that, wages and benefits are
determined by free market principles of supply and demand.
Software engineers, for example, are doing quite alright 
without the strength of unions behind them and I personally
don't see the need for one. Empowering unions makes sense
if a company is predisposed against blue-collared workers.
I do not think in the current times this is true. If a free
market has its way, every one gets paid what he is worth.
(Except for the CEOs whose pay is not determined by the free
market. They are both the grantors and the receipients.)
If you don't like the pay you are receiving, as they say
across the Atlantic, 'Tough!'

I may have come across as strongly anti-union. This is because
I have seen the gravely detrimental role unions have played
in India's quest for progress. For example, bank employees
froze all banking operations in India for 2-3 days, protesting
against the introduction of computers for managing accounts.

There must be a balancing force to counter the ability
of a special interst group from wreaking havoc on others.

Satya Prabhakar
From: ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: US Constitution
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:43:37 GMT
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA



A copy of the U.S. Constitution would be much appreciated,
if anyone has it conveniently available. (The local online
copy is mysteriously truncated.)

Thanks,
arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: US Constitution
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:53:37 -0500

In article <4dsVS9G00aw=Q2TUYe@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>
>A copy of the U.S. Constitution would be much appreciated,
>if anyone has it conveniently available. (The local online
>copy is mysteriously truncated.)
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         So's the original!


-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:3009 soc.culture.canada:3500 rec.arts.comics.strips:996
From: irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (B-rent)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: Comic Strips -- American Cultural Imperialism over Canada
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:54:34 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <7dvhbaad@cck.coventry.ac.uk>, csi056@cch.coventry.ac.uk (WEG) writes:
> In article <srheault.703289777@cunews> srheault@alfred.carleton.ca (Steven Rheault Kihara) writes:
> >In <1992Apr14.211348.16938@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
> >Canada has already successfully
> >>>>applied Canadian content regulations to music, so why not
> >>>>apply it to comic strips?
> >>>  Because it's a bad idea, that's why.
> >>Why?
> >>  Has the result been the growth of a mediocre Canadian musical
> >>industry?
> >
> >Yes, it most emphatically has.
> 
> I agree. That bloody Robin Hood song by Brian Adams spent 15 weeks at No. 1
> in the music charts here. The song is crap!
>

	Ahhh, but you forget, Bryan Adams is not considered to be producing
	Canadian music by the Canadian government since he uses American
	staff members in the production of his music.

	(Stupid Regs -- we don't want him either!!)
 
-- 
Brent Irvine						irvine@ecn.purdue.edu 
 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:3025 soc.culture.canada:3528
From: tylee@leety.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: tylee@leety.austin.ibm.com ()
Organization: IBM Austin Advanced Workstation Division


 
> In article <1992Apr14.182046.2896@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> 
> >In addition, both Britain and France have excluded people who were citizens
> >of their colonies from emigrating back to their home country after the
> >colonial days were over.
> 
> Canadians can emigrate to Britain, work here, and qualify for
> British citizenship after 3 years.
> 
> Check your facts.
> 
> Innes

An exception is Hong Kong.

/* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of IBM's.
 *
 * Take care and have a nice day.
 *
 * Ter-Yuan Lee
 * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 */
Xref: sparky alt.tasteless:4479 soc.culture.usa:2850
From: smith@hall.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.: Come To Uncle
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:55:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: hall.SMITH.92Apr13095541
	<SMITH.92Apr8193102@gramian.harvard.edu>
	<1992Apr10.013434.20600@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Apr10.013434.20600@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:

> In article <SMITH.92Apr8193102@gramian.harvard.edu> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
> >After reading some of the postings in this ``Canada and the U.S.''
> >line, I can restrain myself no longer and have reproduced here
> >(without permission) an editorial from The New Republic that appeared
> >in December, 1988.
> >
> >
> >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> >
> >Come To Uncle
> >(text deleted)
> 
> Very instructive, this article. Very funny, too.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> What I would like to know, Steven, is your own opinion on the article...

I would support annexation of everything, except for southern Quebec,
all lands fouled by Canadian geese, and the flooded areas necessary to
hydro-power New England.  Come to think of it, after seeing Gilbert
and Sullivan's _Utopia, Ltd._ this weekend, I have a plan whereby we
would Americanize Quebec completely.  We start by building ``Monsieur
Disney World'' northeast of Quebec City . . .


> P.S. Is "The New Republic" one of those tabloids Americans love so much?

Yes.

P.S. Congratulations on the Putnam.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,rec.arts.comics.strips