HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: The Decline of America: The "Education President" gets an F
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:00:11 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB

The Decline of America: The "Education President" gets an F


========================================================
Average science test scores among fourteen-year-olds in
            seventeen countries, 1983-86:
========================================================

             SCIENCE                    SCIENCE
COUNTRY       SCORE   COUNTRY            SCORE

Hungary       21.7    Australia          17.8
Japan         20.2    Italy              16.7
Netherlands   19.8    United Kingdom(40) 16.7
Canada(39)    18.6    Singapore          16.5
Finland       18.5    Thailand           16.5
Sweden        18.4    United States      16.5
Poland        18.1    Hong Kong          16.4
South Korea   18.1    Philippines        11.5
Norway        17.9

Source: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement, Science Achievement in Seventeen Countnes, A Preliminary
Report (New York Pergamon Press, 1988).

******************************************************************

From: 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:58:13 GMT

In <BvznyD.GJG@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.203124.5379@das.harvard.edu> adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

[Speaking of arf's boycott of Kosher food "in sympathy with Palestinians"]

>>No, your target is not supporters of Israel.  Your targets are Jews.

>>Lets take the following divisions of people

>>1. Religious Jews
>>2. non religious Jews

>>Within each, we have Jews who are:
>>a. "Supporter" of Israel
>>b. "anti"-Israel

>>and non Jews who are:
>>X. "Supporter" of Israel
>>Y. "anti"-Israel 

>>The boycott effects all people who are in sets 1a and 1b, in that a
>>product they like is targeted for the same reason they like it.

>You can repeat your lame antisemitic accusaton as often as you like.  It 
>does not make it a fact.

Yes, arf.  You *are* lame, and you are an anti-semite.  That makes you a
lame anti-semite.

>The boycott effects only the people who voluntarily honor it and the 
>company selling the stuff..

But wait!  You admit it!  It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with
Palestinians.  It doesn't affect them!

Boycotts are designed to convince a company to change its practices.  If
you're boycotting food that gets marked kosher, the only thing you're
doing is trying to convince these companies NOT to sell their food as
kosher.  Which hurts anyone who needs to eat kosher food -- Jews AND
Moslems.

And kosherness has NOTHING to do with Israel or the mid-east.  It has 
to do with Jews.  Boycotting *Israeli* products would be a sign of
sympathy for the Palestinians.  Boycotting *kosher* products is an
attack on Jews.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Bush Aide Foresees Landslide -- for Bush
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 04:54:57 GMT

In article <1bavqoINNed7@overload.lbl.gov> bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>A Bush victory in this manner would probably cause a true national
>depression.  What would he have except a mandate to escalate the war
>in Vietnam?

Gee, maybe he'd begin to agree with Clinton and escalate in Bosnia
to try to resolve the mess there that James Baker helped create.
Except Bush said in the debates that he's "learned the lessons of
Vietnam" and wouldn't do that.

I'm beginning to be confused.  What was Clinton's sin in speaking
out against the same thing George Bush did 23 years later?  Prescience?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:53:30 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Donn F. Pedro (dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com) wrote:
: In article <BvpGHt.Lnz@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
: >>Yes. The gender preference of child molesters has little to do with any
: >>adult-oriented sexual preference they may possess.
: >
: >    A man who sexually abuses boys can not be HETEROsexual.  He is definitely
: >    a pedophile, either homosexual or bi-sexual.
: 
: Yes he can.  Orientation is not what you do.

  Unless you follow the line of reasoning being quoted by Cramer...  The 
majority of molestation is by people who deny their orientation.  As such
it is more than probable that a child is safer with an openly homosexual
(gay ?) individual than with one who claims to be heterosexual.
: 
: 
:      Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com
: 
: 		     There are no ordinary moments.
-- 

		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Thu Oct  8 09:53:28 WET DST 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: KKKaldis Alert
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:44:36 GMT

In article <nyikos.719177328@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1992Oct10.031635.6744@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@ellis.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>>No, KKKaldis, that's what God thinks of people trying to rape His angels.
>     ^^^^^^^^

>Elizabeth, why do you call people nicknames like this on the basis of such
>fragmentary evidence?

Peter, why do you assume I'd only seen the one article by Teddy KKKaldis?

The title of my article was "KKKaldis Alert!" after all; doesn't it
seem obvious that he's got a reputation?

"That's easy.  This is yet another example of feminine "logic" (truly
an oxymoron if ever there was one)."            -  Theodore A. Kaldis

Anybody want to e-mail Peter more examples?  That one was spectacular
enough that I haven't bothered to archive any more, but I'm sure
somebody else would has.  At the very least, someone must have the
article where KKKaldis said that he'd loaned his buddy a tire-iron to
mug a gay man with (actually, if I recall correctly, Teddy claimed he
didn't know what his friend wanted the tire iron from, but it was
pretty d*mned obvious from context).  Admittedly, Teddy said even at
the time that it was years ago and he feels very guilty about it now.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Vote for Clinton!
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:42:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.052950.29697@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>el> Elizabeth G. Levy
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> The bonus is that a Clinton presidency will make us fondly recall our cur-
>    rent economic woes, as his policies will put the economy into a Carterish
>    state. 
>
>
>  Pro-Clinton folks can fantasize all they want about the economy improving
>  under him, but I just don't see it. Japan and Germany aren't exactly in 
>  great shape, Europe as a whole is re-thinking its plans, and Clintonian
>  economic policies haven't been in vogue since his advisers were big in DC,
>  circa late-1970s. A recipe for ever-lengthening ever-deepening recession,
>  as I look at it. To use an old cliche, "To hurt the economy, elect a Re-
>  publican, to destroy it, elect a Democrat."
>
>  The best we can hope for is four more years of Bush-like misery.

I guess I'm an optimist, 'cause I've been putting the tag
line
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate

This sums up my judgement of the next 4 years under Clinton.
More of the same in taxation (increased), spending (increased),
regulation (increased), deficits (still enormous), and the economy
(slow growth).  That is pretty much what we've had for the last few years.
And Clinton is against the kinds of real reforms and real change (school
choice, torts, curbing entitlements etc.) that we really need.

Perhaps that means I'm not sold on Bush's "trust" issue.
I trust Clinton will be a panderer and compromiser, politically
skillful and economically inept. If we're *lucky*, he will break
most of his campaign promises, especially w.r.t. spending. We will
get the foreign policy of Carter and the domestic policy
of Bush/Carter/Hoover.

yippie (said with all the gusto of Gore discussing world population
growth)

Pat
	Bill Clinton: The Status-Quo Candidate
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52227 alt.activism:17529 misc.headlines:6617
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: PRIORITIES: Bombs, not Food for 3rd World
Summary: We're #1
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:36:23 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <9210150400.AA11386@tba.msi.cornell.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
> The Decline of America: PRIORITIES: Bombs, not Food for 3rd World

	One would think from H*r*l's headline that this would be a comparison
of food aid vs. non food aid.  Instead we get a statist's complaint that the US
is not funding certain organizations.

	One thing H*r*l neglects to tell you is:

	The US is the #1 nation for both growing food and giving it away.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:00:06 GMT
Organization: Chevron

Bush said he had no evidence against Clinton last night in the Larry
King show.

Besides, the evidence is much greater that Bush is a Chinese spy.  He
was in China for years.  Even though they crack down on democracy, we
give them most favored nation trade status.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:36:36 GMT
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <BvpGHt.Lnz@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>Yes. The gender preference of child molesters has little to do with any
>>adult-oriented sexual preference they may possess.
>
>    A man who sexually abuses boys can not be HETEROsexual.  He is definitely
>    a pedophile, either homosexual or bi-sexual.

Yes he can.  Orientation is not what you do.


     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50748 alt.politics.elections:15995 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6621
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:34:47 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Distribution: usa
 <1992Oct8.195203.15406@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <BD.92Oct9110836@fluent.UUCP>
 <1992Oct9.212452.21501@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>

[Distribution trimmed]

In article <1992Oct9.212452.21501@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu
(Martin L. Adkins) says:
>          ...I've owned a small business with less than 50 employees.  If
>one of my employers wanted time off for an emergency and, importantly, I could
>provide it and still make a living I would do it...

Great. Martin L. Adkins, you are a really swell guy who cares about the
people who work for him.

In fact, I wish there were more employers like you out there. Unfortunately,
there tends to be rather a lot of employers tending towards the mean and nasty
end of the scale, who will deny any family leave or even fire anyone who asks
about it. (After all, in the middle of a recession, there's hundreds of people
ready to line up for a job, why provide actual benefits when you don't have
to?) This is why the family leave bill is needed. Get the point?

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:59:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:
>Right.  If you are protesting a policy of a government - and that
>government is not of the country you are living in - where do you go?
>To that country's embassy, usually; ...
>
>In short:  If you march in front of an embassy with a sign saying
>"STOP THE WAR!"  or "FREE POLITICAL PRISONERS", you are expressing
>your opinion that that country should end a war it is involved in, or
>free its political prisoners, or whatever.  It does not mean you think
>the country is evil, has no right to exist, or should be bombed
>back into the stone age.

Point taken, but for the record, the demonstration in question consisted
of the carrying of a coffin containing the names of servicemen killed in
Vietnam, along with many people carrying white crosses to the Embassy.
On the steps outside the embassy, the names of the dead servicemen were
read in a very somber ceremony.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.101316.25454@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
    >Let me see if I follow the way you're thinking. You don't
    >think there is a conspiracy or a way of thinking that
    >discounts (perhaps even hides) the work women do, yet you do
    >think that women scientists have "gotten the shitty end of
    >the stick a lot"? So, when women scientists get the shitty
    >end of the stick a lot, it isn't because of sexism or
    >misogyny, it's just that shit happens?

From observation, the objective qualities that seem to make things happen
the best, in both business and science, are qualities that are often thought
of as masculine and as such, for whatever reasons, not as readily
adopted by women.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Summary: a few short items from a tall notebook
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:16:10 GMT
Followup-To: poll of the day
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


     I find it extremely interesting that it has taken until 
now for someone to mention polling and bias.  This is where 
media bias truly hits home.
     Despite the fact that we try our best to claim that 'just
because a poll is released does not mean that it will influence'
is ludicrous.  If I happen to be an undecided voter who is leaning
towards Clinton(e), and just happen to turn on the evening news
in time to see YET ANOTHER poll showing Clinton(e) in the lead,
just where he happened to be last hour WHEN THE LAST POLL WAS TAKEN,
            I think that I'd lean towards Clinton(e).

     Similarly, if I were leaning towards B/Q, and saw the same poll,
I'd be disheartened.

    Polls do influence voter's minds.
   
     Fortunately, the weekly reader poll of K-4 voters gives hope for
the future.  If Clinton(e) should be elected, and his plans go
about as well for America as I think they will, Then in another 10
years the Republican party will have another ingrained voter block.

Kemp and Baker in 1996.

Clean House.

------------------------------------------------------------------
--    it's spelled S T A M B E R.  get it right already!        --
--                                                              --
--      stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu                          --
--          Graduate School of Industrial Engineering           --
--            ( a conservative art)                             --
--------------------------------------------------lets go pens----
From: dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re:  spelling this stuff out clearly
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:32:00 GMT

Alan,

The problem of civil forfeiture laws, and similar abuses of the search
and seizure clauses of the Constitution, are problems of electing the
wrong politicians, ones who hold civil rights in contempt.

Bad law in a good cause is rampant throughout the criminal justice
system, and needs to be addressed as its own problem, perhaps by a
constitutional referendum affirming that we want the constitution
interpreted on its face when it comes to our rights, not on what is
convenient to the criminal justice system.

I hold probably less truck than you with RICO and a long list of other
abuses of the legal process recently legislated. There are just some
folks who can't stand "innocent until proven guilty", and insist on
vague statutes like "consipracy" so that they can get on with the
punishment business without ever having proved an injury done to the
law or to any citizen, and we keep electing them to Congress and the
White House, and appointing them to the police.

Just don't let the real need to eliminate _this_ poison turn you to
favoring introducing a worse one, legalizing wider substance abuse, in
its stead.

Let it send you to work with the League of Women Voters to help get us
a better class of politicians, a step that might do some actual good.

Kent, the man from xanth.
"The Birthright of humankind is the stars!"
--
Ignore the header, and don't expect me to see a news reply.  We don't get news.
Use email to: <dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil> or <dolan@192.138.87.240>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51747 ca.politics:8665 alt.politics.elections:16774 alt.politics.perot:2140 alt.politics.clinton:10403 alt.politics.bush:9140
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 06:04:47 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
> It may have been "wrong" to avoid getting drafted, but it wasn't
> illegal.  The draft is unconstitutional, and thus it cannot be illegal
> to avoid it.
> 

Wrong, wrong, WRONG. 

The draft has NEVER been ruled "unconstitutional", and has survived EVERY
such challenge. it's a typical liberal rhetorical lie to claim that
anything they don't like is "unconstitutional". 

Now, some means of avoiding the draft are legal. I, for example, avoided
being drafted and sent to Viet Nam by the simple expedient of enlisting in
the Navy and spending those years in the Atlantic. Joining the National
Guard or the Coast Guard are also legal. Lying to the draft board, and
swearing to join the Arkansas ROTC (and then welching on the promise!) are
NOT legal, and show incredibly poor judgment for a man who only wanted to
"maintain his political viability". 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:28:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: transcript, obfuscation, confusion

In article <Bw2E83.Go8@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com> dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe) writes:
>In article <Bw1237.5Hy@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> [silly attack deleted]
>>
>>  Andre Marrou was also put on the ballot in all 50 states
>>  by his supporters, but he didn't have enough money to buy
>>  a presence before the media or to air 30 minute spots on
>>  prime-time TV.   If Perot was not fabulously wealthy he
>>  would be a complete unknown, politically speaking.  he has
>            ^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>
>Just like Marrou.  I'm glad he has the money.
>
>>  *bought* far more influence than the biggest, meanest,
>>  richest lobbyist in Washington.  He wouldn't even be on
>>  the ballot in Texas if he weren't a multi-zillionaire. 
>
>It's funny how Peter acridly attacks Perot's ideas to "soak
>the rich", and then launches into vicious attacks of Perot 
>based on the fact that he IS rich.  

   You will be very hard pressed to find anyplace in the above
   or elesewhere that I have attacked Perot *because he is rich*.
   As long as he came by his money honestly I don't care if he
   is as rich as Bill Gates.   All I'm attacking is his claim
   that his campaign is somehow free of "special interest money".
   I.e., he is clearly especially interested in getting elected.
   He is spending vast amounts of money in this quest.   It's not
   clear to me how his campaign is any less a special interest
   than any other well-financed organization trying to promote
   some cause, platform, or agenda.

---peter

   

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50970 alt.politics.clinton:9769