HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 23 Nov 1992 10:39:06 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ERM
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>The problems within the ERM rumble on. Last weekend the Spanish Peseta
>and the Portugese Escuda were both devalued by (I think) 6%. It is
>thought that the Irish Punt will devalue next weekend after the
>election there on Wednesday, along with the Danish Krona. Sterling and
>(I think) the Lira are still outside the ERM.

        Ireland has followed Sweden's example and raised their money market
rates to 30%.

>Some of us might say that this shows again the folly of trying to fix
>exchange rates.

        I think what it really shows is the folly of devaluation.

        The problem is that until unification, the trading was targeted for a
fixed range, giving currency speculators a floor and ceiling to shoot for.
This increases the odds that they can make a profit buying and selling
currency.  It's not wonder the market has been volatile.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:19:17 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      stupendous man fails to live up to billing

Stupendous Man:

That was a very interesting bar chart but it only has ONE SMALL PROBLEM.
What was the source of your figures?

                     DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN USA

PCT OF POPULATION                        PCT OF WEALTH
   1                                         90
   1                                          05
  98                                          05

SOURCE:   PURE SPECULATION INC.

FRED
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:31:59 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Barbara and Hillary
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

> Yeh, but.  Barbara is known to be politically viscious in private.
> I would like to know if she kept the decorum which she (as always)
> presented to the press when they were in private or whether she let
> her true feelings be known.

IMHO, she didn't do a very good job of hiding her true feelings
when she was talking to the reporters.

I don't understand why people are sitting around waiting to see
fireworks and catfighting, like a bunch of Romans at the
Coliseum.  That's part of the problem in this country today, IMO.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:30:41 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the ele

Actually, I just heard on the news that the State Department has
determined that this is >NOT< 1992 and that it is >actually< still
only 1991!  (I didn't get the whole gist of it but basically it
has to do with the fact that Ronald Reagan did not die in office,
as per the 20-year jinx.  I think they determined that it was a
leap-year mixup extending back to the days of Chester Arthur's
presidency; the reason Reagan didn't die in office is because
he was elected in 1979, not 1980 as previously claimed.)

Anyhow, the State Department is calling for new elections to be
held >next< November instead.

(Whew!  That was CLOSE, wasn't it???  To think that Arkansas
cracker actually was getting ready to take office!!!)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:11:06 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

>Let me guess Steve, are you planning to run for the list presidency?

No, no, you missed it apparently.  I *was* a candidate and lost.  The
listserv software let the people of this list go with the Tall Boys
through their own irresponsibility.  But you know what?  If everyone
who voted for Tim had voted for me, *I* would have won.  What do ya
think about that?

Steve R.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 12:23:21 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perot's influence on the election

>Well Jonathan,
>In the eyes of everyone. Your opinion is just a speculation.
>Most of Perot's voters were protesting against Bush. This protest
>vote helped Clinton, whether you get or not. Exit polls do not tell
>the whole truth. People like me will be always convinced that Clinton
>would not have won the elections had Perot not run.

Then why was Clinton ten points ahead of Bush before Perot reentered the race?

-----Gayla
From: ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: The Wages of Sin
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:35:17 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>To address JasonZ's point more directly, I have to imagine a pretty
>implausible case. Suppose there were some government organization that
>was populated exclusively by women. And suppose members of the
>organization shower together. And suppose some men wanted to join.
>(Maybe a girls' sports team in a public school would be something like
>this? A sport that boys don't typically play, so that there was no boys'
>team?) And suppose for some reason, private facilities were not
>feasible.
>
>If there were no other reason for excluding men, I guess I'd have to say
>the organization would HAVE to allow men in. Unfortunate for the coy
>women, but better than the alternative.

  Some girls sports team like field hockey, maybe?
  And maybe it can even be local to RI.
  And maybe the boy will be denied the opportunity to
    play on the team by the courts.

  No, that could never happen here.

                                   -Tim
From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:14:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

Sorry, JasonZ, but you seem to have an even greater ignorance of the
military than I previously surmised!

The military is NOT a democracy, NOT subject to the *same* laws as private
citizens or private/public businesses, and are actually QUITE responsive to
the concerns of the members - within a particular command.  Some, I agree,
are pretty bizarre.  I know of one marine command that mandates boxer shorts
instead of briefs - and the CO will make you strip on the parade grounds to
ensure his order.  But I digress.

You seem to think that every head is one big open pit where members are
shoved in and hosed down!  I know officers have it better than grunts, but
the majority of shore heads are just like public restrooms - with stalls
even for showering (gasp!).  Boats are a bit different, but most heads there
have privacy.  Grunt basic training DOES try to strip individuality, and so
privacy is first to go.  I think the problem is being overstated by people
who don't know what they're talking about;  the real problems lie in the p
probable increase in violence against gays, probable increase in transfer
requests/commission resignations, and discipline among discontented rank-
and-files.

Know the subject, *then* spew! :)

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:21:33 CST
From:         Kip Shaw <KIS100F@SMSVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Religion and Politics

Some Remarks on Religion, Science, Politics:

a) Consider 0 - 1000 ad.
   There was no appreciable science to even balance out religion.
   Brawn ruled over the cortex.

b) Consider 1000-2000 ad.
   Clearly, religion is no longer a destructive force, compared to
   the the 0 -1000 ad period.
   The development of science, especially through the seventeenth
   century, has derailed the destructive potentials of religions.


c) Consider 2000-3000 ad.

   Science is here to stay, along with its proven destructive force.
   Science and religion don't mix at all, although they can co-exist.
   More science implies de-emphasis on power through religion.
   There is a surprise too:
   Politics will rise itself from the current day art-form based on
   voodoo liberal/conservative economics to a science which admits
   no theory only concrete verifiable predictible results.

*** Problem:

It is known that about 10 billion years from now, this planet of ours
is going to destruct.
If there are still people here 10 billion years from now, they would
have to devise a way of getting out of this planet and navigating
(perhaps through the methods of Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk)
to another and on the way they would most likely have to either careen
over a Sun or actually cut through a Sun with all its high temperatures.
These are the questions:

a) Does any religion show us a way out?

b) What political theory will allow people to survive through at least
   the next 10 billion years?

c) Can science construct a theory and spacecrafts which will allow
   navigation through the intense heat, navigation near from black holes
   etc? (note: Carl Sagan says, I believe, that we may have to travel
   through black holes, tunnells and so forth to survive (reference:
   one of his videos, perhaps).

O Members of the Political Discussion Group:
--------------------------------------------

I am forced to unsubsribe from this political discussion group because

a) I cannot handle the 50-100 emails from this group (I read 'em all)
   each day, it is quite distracting to my main line of work (which is
   the exact opposite of politics.)

b) This is my last message, I am unsubscribing from this politics group,
   thank you and best regards to everyone in this very interesting group.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:56:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Holy War
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

14 out of 28?  That's all?

How do we define "over religious differences?"

By the way, T., I think you're being kinda judgemental and holier-than-thou
a lot today-- off the cuff comments about people at Brown, taking Steven's
comment out of context and making a snide remark about how things are
imporiving on the list.

I think your recent exchange with Tim J. was arrogant and silly.  While
some will call me "liberal," I get very frustrated when I see so-called
"liberals" expressing their opinions in very self-satisfying manners
that are really hypocritical and rationalizing, something I see a lot
of from you.

In other words, I think you need to do more thinking before you post
and I think you have to stop reading things into people's comments
that are not necessarily there.

Hope this hasn't given you the impression that I am "lowering the
quality" of the list.

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:26:00 EST
From:         Happy Holidays from the Military-Industrial Complex
              <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan dodged the draft!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Brett':

NNow _you_ are putting words in my mouth ;-):

I do not "disappove" of what Clinton did to avoid the draft.
I simply do not equate it with genuine anti-war protesting.  I
see nothing _wrong_ with it but I do not think of it some heroic
thing to do.

So please don't misrepresent me as an excuse to bludgeon T, ok?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:43:18 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays and lesbians in the military

I can't believe that I am responding to this, but I feel
compelled for professional reasons.

Regarding the following:

>For the sake of ending this argument once and for all, I'll restate KAT's
>challenge a little more vigorously.  If Linda and Julie can honestly contend
>that they would feel comfortable showering with 20-30 18 year old men, or if
>any man can honestly contend that he wouldn't be distracted by an 18 year old
>woman showering 2 feet away from him, then I'll have to reevaluate my position.
>Until then . . .

>JasonZ

My comment regarding this is simple.  I do lots of things in the theatre.
Backstage in the green room, we dress and undress, sometimes very
frequently during a show, depending on how many costume changes are
called for in the script.

Our small theatre doesn't have the space to have separate dressing rooms
for both women and men.  The result is that we all dress and undress
together.  This doesn't bother any of us because it is a professional
situation.

I understand that this isn't the same as a shower, where there are naked bodies,
I think that the similarity is there.  If people can't be professional with
their bodies, then, well, I just think. . . .

In our society, we place the wrong kind of emphasis on our bodies.  Everyone
has one after all.  It isn't anything to be ashamed of and should be something
that we can all control and I for one don't think it matters if men and
women both hetero and homo share showers and bunks, if it is all within
a working/professional context.

j.b.
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: DoubleSpeak
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:01:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Kerry,

"Creation Science"?

Huh.

[Insert your own joke here.]

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:34:44 EST
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The new vice presidency?
              23 Nov 1992 07:19:15 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

On Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:19:15 EST K=A*T said:
>
>BTW, talking of stethoscopes, why is Kissinger addressed as a "Dr."?
>I know he is a "Dr." but is he a medical Doctor?  I distinctly

PhDs are called "doctor" because the word comes from the latin "docere,"
which means "to teach." Medical doctors (actually appropriately called
"physicians") are called "doctor" because either they have earned
a doctorate-level degree or they *teach* medicine in a teaching hospital.
Thus, PhDs (at least those who face students) are "real" doctors, while
physicians who never teach are "phony" doctors... 8^{)}
Hamlett

>remember, these two PhDs being referred to as "Drs." in the
>first segment of Crossfire.  After a commercial break, Michael
>Kinsely announced that he cannot call them "Drs." anymore because
>it was against the CNN's policy to call PhDs "Drs."  Never mind
>that that infuriated me, but how come Kissinger gets to keep
>his title while I don't recall any other PhDs keeping it?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: CORJB@RHODES.BITNET (Jason Briggs Cormier)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Wages and productivity
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:00:09 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Jamie:

We just had this answered today in my economics class.

Wages have fallen even though productivity has risen.  The surplus
has gone into benefits which very often the government is requiring
such as Social Security, retirement plans, medical insurance, etc.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:43:52 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Influence and the presidency

I'm very confused by all of this discussion about whether it is
somehow unethical for Hillary Clinton or Nancy Reagan to offer their
thoughts to their respective husbands on matters of policy, or for the
presidents to listen, or the like.

What is the objection, exactly? That no one voted for Hillary?

I don't suppose anyone would maintain that it is immoral for a president
to take advice from someone the voters never elected. Nobody elects
cabinet members. And it can't be that anyone is objecting to unelected
persons sitting in on cabinet meetings, for exactly the same reason.

What is the objection, exactly?

Jamie
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: amazing!
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:35:56 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
This has nothing to do with the list (although it might be remotely
political :)) -- but I just turned down an honest-to-goodness chance to
"debate" evolution with Duane Gish!  Apparently a local church is trying to
organize a little get-together, and asked a colleague if anyone would be
willing to "debate" the guy.  I just wanted to share my lost moment of fame
and glory :)

Wonder if I can use this to cadge drinks at meetings?

Kerry
!!!!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:09:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military: last chance
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt392090@drew.edu>, ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET writes:
> Okay.  So what you all (those of you who favor letting gays into the military)
> are saying is that if I wanted to set up my own business and require my female
> employees to shower with men, none of you would have any objection.  None of
> you would claim that this practice constitutes sexual harrassment, so none of
> you would attempt to bring legal action against me.  If any of the females
> protested that they felt uncomfortable, you would all agree that its *their*
> fault for feeling that way and they should just learn to overcome their
> inhibitions.
> sexual harrassment topic comes up.  I'll be counting on your support.
>Jason Z

First, what valid reason would you have to do this which will be
comparable to the military.

Second, once you find this reason, explain how those who are willing
to take the job, knowing nudity is required [say a nudist colony, or
a Friday the 13th movie], can declare sexual harassment just by others
seeing them nude.  Can a Playboy model claim the need to expose
herself is sexual harassment?  Again sexual harassment is not belief,
but discriminary action.

Third, explain how women and men together are comparable to
homosexuals and heterosexuals together esp. since the homosexuals are
a minority and know they are looked down upon and open to abuse, if
they even are known to be homosexuals.  The numbers and situation is
not the same, no matter how much you say it is.

Fourth, heterosexuals are bound to feel somewhaat uncomfortable with
the idea of homosexuals to some degree with the societal norms on the
subject.  I presume men felt the same when women entered the military.
This doesn't mean they can sexually harass them, but if a women is
required by her job to expose herself, this isn't harassment.  What is
your problem with this idea?  Hmm?  This is not comparable to some
sargeant getting pleasure via taking pictures of women showering, for
this is harassment for it is not part of the job.  It is not just
nudity, it is harassment.  Like obsencity isn't pornography just if a
women is nude or even treated violently on film, but when violence is
used just for sexual gratification it is.

Fifth, it seems the Japanese have one over us again here too.

    -Joe

P.S. You said showers aren't the problem but harassment is.  Again, I
ask you, how?  Feeling uncomfortable exposing yourself is not
harassment, unless it is forced on you outside the proper job
description.  Are you against the harassment or the exposure?  State
your problem correctly instead of chasing after straw men.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:13:17 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: US and EC Presidents kill GATT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu, ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET

Other Carl:
[two whole posts deleted]
>Having been corrected on a few minor points, I reiterate the thrust of my
>arguement. That the French Socialists are playing politic with this issue
>is not in question.  Is it so difficult to believe that American Republicans
>would not do the same?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl Rosen           |  My views are my own.
>crosen@world.std.com |  I represent only myself.

Well, that's certainly not the way it is being presented here - the EC
is taking almost all the blame on itself, but then that is an easy way
to get at the French :-)

The latest signs are not good. The European Commission are resuming
negotiations, but the French Agricultural Minister has indicated that
France would not accept a deal which reduces their farmers' subsidies.
They are also putting out scare stories that the deal on the table
would result in a loss of 50% of the UK's arable production (though I
somehow doubt this).

Expect this on to run up to (and probably under) the wire.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:59:51 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Showers part II

From:         Every Man <EVERYMAN@VCUVM1.BITNET>

>        I believe that if 'straight' soldiers have a problem with
>        taking showers with the gays, it is the Straigh guys problem.

There were many good arguments against not letting gays in the
military but no one wrote to the fact that gays and straights
showering together somewhat resembles men and women showering
together.

Now just imagine that we wanted to let the women in the military
but were asking them to take group showers with men and when they
complained we would say:

        "I believe that if women soldiers have a problem with
         taking showers with the men, it is the women's problem."

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:39:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: CLINTON'S BACKPEDALING

Kevin:

        I don't HOPE you're wrong; I know it.

        Clinton said last week that he makes a clear distinction (as does
present policy) between political and economic refugees; he disagreed with
the Bush Administration's policy of turning back *every* refugee from Haiti.
He said, last week - and again this week - that he would allow them to land
and make their case instead of just sending them back.

        How is that backpedaling?  I knew the nay-sayers would be out in
force the first time he screwes up, but this is ridiculous!  You're out there
trying to turn *every* little thing into Clinton's "_____-gate".

        BTW - which party is responsible for the coining of a scandal into
the formula "____-gate"?  You know - the party that epitomizes such scandal?


-T.
(Who's *still* glad they'll be people in DC used to screwing at home - instead
of screwing the country!)