HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:12:47 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      On "societal acceptance" of "abnormal behavior" ...

Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:59:51 +0100 (MET)
From: Grzegorz Albinowski <caius%II.UJ.EDU.PL@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: RE: NORNAL

CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET pisze:

>>         The people in society to whom we look for our understanding of
>> what are "disorders" wholeheartedly disagree with you.  Homosexuality is
>> not considered a disorder, neither physically nor mentally.  That may not

>Yes it is. Have you seen , or heard of, any society (lasting longer
>that 100 years) based on homosexuality?

>Caius.

I would say this to this whole line of thinking. I think that it is
generally known that homosexuality is a "minority behavior" in most
cultures across the 7000-8000 years of "recorded history." However,
that behavior HAS persisted over that same span in almost every
society I've ever studied, in some it has been "highly prevalent" (I
think of the 500 years of Greek history where homosexuality was QUITE
acceptable, though it may never have been a "majoritarian" behavior).
I suggest that it is just "another" behavior, just as "normal" to
humans as heterosexuality, but practiced by a minority, as is
polygamy and polyandry.

I do not see anyone labelling either of those activities as
"abnormal," just another minority activity of the human animal. Let
me ask this question - what if society deemed "right wing Poles" as
"abnormal?" Would you be so eager to send THEM to some other place?
Your labelling is scapegoating, a typical behavior of the
suppressionist and intolerant right, but it does not make your
opinion correct. It seems to me that acceptance that humans behave in
a variety of ways is much better than perjorative labels of specific
minorities on the basis of sexual behavior, skin color, religious
belief, or ethnic origin. But, then I deal with ALL humans on the
basis of abilities and how they perform, the only standard I have is
how people do things - well or poorly. All this condemnation of one
group on a narrow basis of sexual preference is the worst kind of
intolerance. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:26:54 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>        The federal investigator is confirming what many of us knew all along:
>the House banking scandal is a result of criminal conduct.

Actually, that's NOT what the investigator said. He said that there
MAY have been criminal conduct, and advised that a criminal investigation
be instigated.

>        "Just like free overdraft protection" my derriere.

One thing I found very odd about the NY Times article on the subject
was that it did not explain how the scandal differed from free
overdraft protection.

The one thing I saw that did look criminal was that the sgt-at-arms
for the bank sometimes transferred funds from the Treasury Dept.
account into the accounts of House members. That is pretty clearly
criminal in some way. But it looks like the criminal was the sgt-at-arms.

Was anyone able to glean exactly what crime the Congressmen were
supposed to be guilty of?

I believe there will be four current Congressmen under investigation.

>  Oh, and why hasn't the press attacked Inouye like they have Packwood?

I don't know. Does Brett have a hypothesis?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:27:27 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>I think it's time for concession, Jame.
>
>'fess up, now, and help begin to change my opinion of y'all Browners
>(Brownies? Brownanisters?  Brownnunists?  Brownaramans?)....
>-T.

  Speaking of that, -T., your dictionary, the one you
quoted to Jen, what did it say about the 'H' in 'historian'
vs. the 'H' in history.  As I recall, you last said that
one was aspirated, the other not, in normal american usage.
So, -T., go back to that dictionary - I think it is time for
concession.  'fess up now, big guy.

                             -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:37:01 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 2 things
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Joe:
>Ron Brown, the head of the Democratic National Committee was chosen as
>Commerce Secretary by Bill Clinton.  By what I heard of Brown, I'm not
>that comfortable with  him being in this post.  It feels like a
>political appointment (obviously it is) that puts an important job
>(our infrastructure is a major area of concern and possibility) in the
>hands of someone less than well qualified for the role.

        I was hoping that Mr. Brown would get left out of the Clinton admin.
I'd like to be the first to predict that Mr. Brown will leave in disgrace after
a major scandal involving more than a little bit of our tax money.
        Look for Ca. to get some major pork....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:23:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Economic Summit

Apologies to Ellen: I couldn't resist.

> Clinton at least seems to understand that all of these relationships
> are connected.  There was criticism that everybody at the conference
> only talked about what they wanted to talk about, but did you notice how
> Clinton would frequently connect something someone said five minutes
> before with something different that was said five hours before?  He
> understands that these things are all interconnected somehow.

Well... finally we get the truth. Clinton subscribes to the "Dirk Gently"
philosophy: "the fundamental interconnectedness of all things".
The Democratic Leadership Council was just a front for the USA chapter
of the Douglas Adams fan club.

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:35:16 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Look Back in Anger, part 1: Missed Opportunities

>> While Peter has accurately identified the relevant number, he has
>> inaccurately identified the number used to justify "more".  The
>> dominant number used for that purpose ignores govt benefits and things
>> like home ownership, even though those things are (supposed to be)
>> ignored by aid determination.
>
>The "dominant number" is intended to show the size of the problem.

It is used to argue for "more".

>Any complaints about the use of poverty figures to justify social
>welfare spending are valid only of you assume that all of the current
>needs are being met and any further spending is superfluous.

Wrong.  "Ignore aid" poverty figures tell us NOTHING about the size of
the unmet need, yet that's how they're being used.

Consider the fallacy in "we still have <x> million poor people, so
obviously the <y> billion we're spending on them isn't enough".
If the definition of "poor" ignores the effect of that spending
on those people ....

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:02:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Fetal Logic
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt420416@drew.edu>, K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:
> Robert posting in reponse to Jamie:
>
>> When I first joined this list I made the mistake of calling you stupid.
>> I have since found that accusation to be a little hasty.  You are indeed
>> highly intellectual and deserve to be recognized as such.  However, I
>> wonder at what cost you achieved your academic prowess.
>
it must make Jamie feel mighty happy that he is not stupid, but
comparable to a Nazi and someone to be feel sorry for

> Well, if the truth to be told, some of us called YOU an "idiot"
> on your second post to POLITICS.  I don't want to brag but though
> that call was premature it was right on target.  (And yet I didn't
> get to be the President. :-)

it really cheapens debate to go down to the level of those who cheapen
debate.  Calling someone an idiot, even if he or she may be, is not a
good idea for (1) the "idiot" will act more idiotly in rebellion (2)
people will have ammunition against you even if you are 100% right.
And did Robert post his post on gov't secrets in response to be called
an idiot or to make the people who called him an idiot feel bad?
>
>
>> ---Robert
>
> --KAT
>
on a wholely different matter, I hope Donna Shalala who is Clinton's
pick for Health and Human Services (apparently Hillary had a major
role) is as enthusiatic as her praise of Ruth Sidel's book _On Her
Own_ a very good book on the state of women in our society today.

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:46:43 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Discrimination of various kinds

As usual, I find myself in agreement with Hume (this time in the
incarnation of the mysterious psr). I, too, would say that racism is one
kind of bigotry. And I would agree that racism involves beliefs or
attitudes, which distinguishes it from some other kinds of
discrimination.
So I can't agree with Kirkpatrick H., who says,

>I'd have to disagree with your (their, our) definition of Racism. I think that
>no useful purpose is served by separating "Idiscriminates on the basis of
>raceI" and being a "racist". If you are "purposely discriminating on the basis
>of race for any reason" you are a racist.
>Kirkpatrick H.

Suppose I am casting for a production of "Othello." I decide I will
not even consider any white or Asian actors, only black ones.
That isn't racist.
Another director, with a different point in mind, might actually
consider only white actors, perhaps setting the production in
Harlem. Could be an interesting interpretation. Might be lousy.
But the decision isn't racist.

Whether a given case of discrimination on the basis of race counts
as "racism" depends on WHY the person is discriminating.

Irrespective of the semantics, it IS useful to discriminate between
kinds of discrimination.

One (admittedly only tangentially related) question for Doctor Pizz:
WHAT exactly do you think is wrong with homosexuality?

I am delighted that you do not subscribe to Magic Book theory of
moral judgments. But I wonder what your alternative basis is.

Jamie

Footnote to Joe:

>Jim gave 2^b as the biggest number using some mathematical terms.  Did
>they mean that what number is before the "b" doesn't matter?  i.e. is
>9^b not larger than 2^b?

2^b, or not 2^b, that is the question, I guess.

Jim? Oh yeah, him.
If b is infinite, then 9^b is not larger than 2^b. Well, it depends
on which kind of "larger" you use, and which kinds of numbers you're
talking about, but Jimbo's is the most common interpretation.

Still, I'm wondering about the rules of Jimbo's game. I thought the
rules were these: KAT challenged Jimbo to name a number, and then
KAT would name a larger one. I'm not sure whether Jimbo thinks he's
named a number. If he did, I am confident that KAT can name a larger one.

See, Joe, this is all in a footnote, and the real posting has political
content, so I'm off the hook. Right?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:09:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look back and wrangle...the poverty thing again
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>...
>>        But hey, there's no fraud anywhere.  Let's just label those who imply
>>there is as tools of the rich and anti-poor.
>
>Thank you for bringing up yet another shocking abuse by greedy wealthy people
>of the poor. B)
>
>Note that the perpetrators and recipients of the fraudulently acquired funds,
>goods and services are doctors and health care providers, not the poor.

        Unlike O'Andy, I'm not making this into a rich vs. poor thing.  All
along my premise has been that they current entitlement system simply doesn't
work.  How O'Andy turns this into a tirade against the poor is beyond me :).

>By the way did you happen to see the 20/20 episode a few weeks ago that
>had the feature about how dermatologists were providing facials and other
>non-medical services to their well-heeled clients and billing them to
>health insurance plans? I don't suppose you'd consider the idea that
>fraud and abuse show up in all institutions, and while it is indeed
>irritating and wrong one should not use it as evidence that a program
>created and administered with the best of intentions and reasonable
>and prudent controls is without value.
>
>-other Andy

        The current health-care system is so bad that only one thing can make
it worse: socialization.

        Can you say "gag rule"?  Let your imagination flow with the
possibilities of what "President Pat Buchanan" would do to a health care system
controlled by the government.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:23:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: NORNAL [i.e. normal]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt424264@drew.edu>, Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU> wr
   ites:

keep in mind that the title of this post is "nornal" so maybe he
misspelled it below and is really trying to define "nornal."

> Normal - "conforming to the typical or standard pattern 2) average in
> intelligence and personality 3) free from mental disorder"

people got angry at this post, but I think prima facie it is ok.  As I
noted elsewhere, normal is a societal (or personal) construct on
accepted behavior and beliefs.  It's a truly relative concept and by
itself it is somewhat valueless.  The key is why something is
"abnormal" or wrong.  Personally I think, "rightist" is being abused the same
way.  People are spending long posts on saying "nazis are/are not
rightists" either by references or fiat, but don't dwell on the
definition of what a "rightist" means.  Not very helpful.

> definition 1 - Clearly homosexuals do not conform to the typical or
> standard pattern.

right.  so?  in a way they are not "normal" or "average" people, but
neither are albinos.  Who cares?  I'm an agnostic, therefore I seem to
be abnormal.  Don't really care, but do I deserve to be discriminated
against?  No.  Only if the "abnormality" I have is offensive to people
or immoral will it matter, and only if it will do harm will I deserve
to be discriminated against via employment, etc.  People think I fit
such criteria, I'm sure, but only by dwelling on them do they have a
means of argument.  "Normal" is not enough.

> definition 2 - not a relevant definition

arguably, also right.

> definition 3 - gays are saying it is innate.  Many would consider it to
> be a disorder
>

sadly right.  Many feel sexual bigots have some kind of disorder too,
but unless the belief conflicts with their job (ex. ACT-UP can
probably not hire such people to be activists) it is not ok for them to be
discriminated against.

> Pizz

let's look at the list of abnormal people we can set up that can be
discriminated using Pizzlike criteria:

- atheists, agnostics, Jews , Moslems (less of these in the country combined
then homo or bi sexuals)
- homo and bi-sexuals
- those who feel the above group are normal
- hard line feminists (or feminists in general)
- Nazis, hard line conservatives, liberals, and libertarians
- Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, etc.
- those who feel drugs should be legal (William Buckely
combining two these categories is a double whammy)
- minorities (by race or national origin)
- people in mixed marriages, their children
- people whose personality is not "average", ex. sad a lot of the
time, thinks everything is funny, loves people greatly or very little,
etc.
- various others who I can't think of

     -Joe, abnormal and proud of it
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:35:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Schlesingerian cycles

Just wondering if anyone out there has an opinion on the so-called
"Schlesinger cycle" -- the theory proposed by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
that once every 30 years or so, American government returns to a more
activist public interest.

I find it interesting, but I also note that Schlesinger really doesn't
take the idea as far as he can.

That is not to say that I believe that American politics is a slave to
cycles per se; that would be foolish to think that.  But what do you
think?


Ellen
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Employment Law (inter alia)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:54 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181643.AA12448@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,       
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>Dunstan_Vavasour pisze:
>>>
>>> This all boils down to one's view of society. If you believe that
>>> government has a role in forming social policy, then it is perfectly
>>> legitimate and indeed necessary that government enact legislation
>>> restricting the freedoms of employers.
> 
>I do not accept the government manipulating the economy.

What would you do if the economy collapsed?  To quote FDR, "Try anything.  If
it doesn't work, try something else."

Besides, if the government doesn't at least macroplan the economy, big business
usually does.  See Carnoy and Shearer, _Economic Democracy_.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:24:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money

I said:

> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
> the person who earned it.

KAT responds:

* And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
* taken away from them.

Sorry, KAT, you lost me.  I read this as meaning there is no such thing
as a voluntary economic transaction. Could you please expand on your
statement?

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:39:45 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: private business
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET" at Dec 17, 92 5:00 pm

CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET pisze:
>>
>> Why doesn't Pizz just drop all the half-hearted BS arguments and just SAY
>> "I want private business to be able to discriminate based upon (the above)
>>  when hiring." ???
>>
>> I don't think _anyone_ has bought your arguments, Doc...just admit it and we
>> can move on.....


I want private business to be able to discriminate based upon (the above)
when hiring.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:13:27 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Spike Lee and Racism
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Rick,

     The point about Maaxine Waters calling Bush a racist at the D.N.C.
is that the leaders of the party, or Clinton himself should have stated
that they disapprove of that slaanderous remark.  Clearly, Bush haas
stood up for Clinton before, when he was being attacked on apersonal
level.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:01:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Queens controversy yet again
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

This is probably hopeless, but whatthehell, it's Christmas . . .

> >is asked "Should people be fired from their jobs, or thrown out of
> >their apartments, solely because they're gay?" the proper answer
> >is "No, no more than if they were black, or Jewish, or single," then
> >we're even closer than I think we are.
>
> The proper answer is actually another question.  What job? or What
> apartment?  Your comparison of gay to black, Jewish, or single is
> completely erroneous.  Let's try drummer, rapist, and shoplifter.
> IMO it would be entirely prudent to discriminate against each of
> these in specific areas.

Now here's an interesting statement, and one that often gets made by
the anti-gay faction on this list.  I can agree that drummers, rapists
and shoplifters may very well be poor neighbors.  But I know of no
apartment leases which have "no shoplifter" clauses.  And I doubt that
the mere possession of a drum is considered cause for eviction, much
less firing.  In all three cases the problem is with what these people
DO, not what they ARE, and the reason we have a problem is that what
they do impinges on others.  It causes an effect ranging from annoyance
to severe harm.

Now black, Jewish or single is something that people ARE, even though
they may also involve a fairly large number of actions as well.  But
these actions (observing the holidays, for example) do not impinge on
anybody else.  When they do (running a kosher butcher shop in the living
room, to grab a silly example) they are properly regulated.

Now gay is what some people ARE, and they may be gay even if they are
celibate.  And what homosexuals do, in private, has no effect on you
at all.  Even public acts, such as the expressions of affection that
seem to upset the good Doctor, are hardly any more intrusive than the
wearing of a yarmulke.

So you need to come up with a better justification for your attitude
than this.  So far all you've offered is personal distaste as a
justification for restricting the ability of gays to live or work
where they please.  That's not enough.  It's also not enough to cite
divine orders, either, at least not while the First Amendment remains
in force.  Besides, that claim opens you up to a reversal of your
charge of moral equivalence--remember that using orders to justify
your actions has a questionable history  :-).

Best,
Peter

> ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU