HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:20:27 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A correction to Andy on the Environment

Dave:

No, you're not paranoid.  It's all about Agribidness.  (See Marty
Jezer's THE DARK AGES.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:12:29 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:42:00 EST <ZIMMERJ@WABASH> said:
>As far as KAT's original post goes, the discount rate is the rate that the Fed
>charges member banks when they borrow federal funds.  Obviously, banks are
>going to mark up their own interest rates charged on loans (such as credit
>cards) above the rate they have to pay to borrow funds (when they need to do
>so).  In other words, the discount rate is is the "base" interest rate which
>keeps getting marked-up until you wind up paying market-level rates on loans
>and credit cards.

But it is to the advantage of lending institutions to drag their feet lowering
rates as it's almost a steal when the rate drops and they take weeks 'n
weeks to lower their own rates (if @ all).  And on the issue of rates
increasing, the Trib had an excellent article about three weeks ago
(front page, no less) which said that when rates are expected to increase
that the number of institutions intentionally smurfing up mortgage
applications increases dramatically as they'd have to pay the difference
"out of their own pockets" once the customer locks in...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:48:05 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: response to Brni

>If a whole bunch of employers get together and decide that a, b, and c type
>of people it can also get hard to find another job.

The interesting detail is that employers don't do that unless govt is
encouraging it.  If govt is encouraging it, it's hard to argue that
it will protect against it.  Employers don't always go along with
such encouragement, so ....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:28:00 EDT
From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject: RE: response to Brni

Tyrone--who said anything about business controlling your beliefs?
They can't throw you in jail--all they can do is fire you.  Don't
you think if I put my hard-earned money into owning a business
that I should be able to hire and fire whom I wish?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:39:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Pennies From Heaven

I think that what Robert is trying to say is that there is a consensus as to
the main ideas contained in the Bible and the doctrines referred to such
as those concerning the Virgin Mary and the Mormon teachings on polygamy
are peripheral issues which are being brought up to distract attention from
this consensus.

Chris Morrison
CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:38:43 CDT
From:         There is No Answer <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      re: homosexuality

> *** Resending note of 09/08/92 16:19


> >  ....I can't say I've particularly gave a flying fuck what you
> >have babbled so far...
> >Dave

> How did we arrive at a discussion of "America's Funniest Home Videos"?

> ---Robert

Rulekeeper, I'd like to register another Robert's rule. I believe
it is number 12.  "If there is no way you cannot respond to the
issues involved in a post without showing your ignorance and
bigotry, concentrate on a minor language point."

On second thought, maybe this should be crosslisted as Tim's first...B)

Robert, to rephrase myself: I feel no particular need, most of the
time, to read you defending religious opression. However, for this
one post, I thought I would try to explain that, your rantings to
the contrary, your choice of holy inspiration may decide your actions
but should not be allowed to be forced on the rest of society. Hey,
Do I force *YOU* to watch sacrifices to dread Cthulhu on Sunday
televison?

You don't like homosexuals. Fine. I have no problem with that. You
want them to be oppressed. Unless you find a very good argument
to defend that, I have a very serious problem with that. So far,
your arguments are a kin to the earlier "I don't like them," and
that doesn't cut it with me. It may cut it with Pat Buchanan and
David Duke, but not with me.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:51:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: read my lips: I have family values

The minimum wage bill was going to eliminate jobs and cause inflation,
Y       K(@iewt to require employers to give advance notice about plant closings
...I forget what he didn't like about that one.  There are others.

                                Chris Morrison
                                CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:32:28 EDT
From:         "Patrick W. Hamlett" <PWHMDS@NCSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re:War Between the Jasons

On Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:43:13 CDT Sue Clark said:
>Hello all,
>
>Finally a sane day, maybe the vast majority of students also took Tuesday
>off.  We will see.
>
>Concerning the 'marriage' between homosexuals...
>
>Are there not homosexual marriages already?  There are actual homosexual
>unions complete with wedding and reception activities that have been shown
>on videos.  It seemed that these homosexual marriages were performed by
>a minister.
>
>While I also agree that a homosexual marriage is wrong morally and Biblically,
>they are performed, and are not restricted.  I have even heard the term
>'partnership' instead of the word 'marriage' applied to homosexual unions.
>This term I just heard the past week.
>
>Still, there are these 'partnerships' that do exist between members of the
>same gender and they are still performed, the state and court are not
>stopping them.  Though I agree with the law that a homosexual union is no
>a legitimate marriage, yet they are still happening.
>Though I agree with the law that this is not a legitimate marriage, yet they
>So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
>are performing them anyway?
>
Can you be as sublimely naive as this post implies? You think there is no
difference between legally sanctioned and not-sanctioned marriages? What
about all of the rights that hetersexuals enjoy in legally sanctioned
marriages taht are plainly denied to homosexuals, regardless of how many
"marriages" are performed? Why don't we just tell former slaves that they
can "vote" as often as they like, but their votes won't be legally
sanctioned...that should please 'em...
Oy vey...
Hamlett
>Sue Clark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:47:58 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Pennies From Heaven

>If we put the Bible in the classroom, why would we need to have
>doctrine?  They can just *read* it.  I don't believe Robert
>suggested *teaching* from it--that would require additional
>revenues.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Can't you see third graders reading "begat Abraham, who begat Joshua,
who begat......."  without any *teaching*.
                                                ---roger
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:10:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: rest rooms

more to the point brni, i don't want to look at a bunch of urinals :).
-linda (going out of my mind dealing w/minimally disfunctional freshmen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:03:08 GMT

Kerry has an interesting thesis.  She claims that people commit
suicide because they have too high a level of self-esteem.
I suppose she would argue that suicide is 'selfish.'

Damn, but my life is wonderful.  Everything is going so nicely.  I have
a happy marriage, good friends, and a promising career.  Gee, I guess
I'll go kill myself now.

*scoff*

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:08:07 EDT
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Stephenson" at Sep 12, 92 1:17 am

In a letter, Presidential Candidate Kerry Stephenson wrote:

| The first amendment says *Congress* shall make no law.  Congress shall
| not *establish* religion (a la Church of England.)  However, to assume
| that this requires an abandonment of the tenets of the Judeo-Christian
| ethic on which the Constitution stands is to misunderstand both
| theology and history.  As I've said, if the Founders had wanted a
| government without a God, they would have created the *French* (instead
| of the American) Revolution.

	1st off, The 1st Amendment:

	 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
 religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
 the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
 a redress of grievances.

	Read it, learn it, love it, Live it. Basically, it says that
goverment can't proclaim a religion. It also means that you can
practice any religion you damned well please, and they can do nothing
about it. THUS, the makers of the Constitution did want a GODless
government, although not neccesarily GODless people. So, to some up,
The founders of the constitution believed in a Judeo-Christian type
God, however, the Government they created was one where Religion was
not to be a part of it.

	I always get a chuckle when I read people saying that The
founders, if they wanted a truly GODless government would have had the
French Revolution. Just two points.

	Serious Point: The French Revolution COULD NOT have happened
without the American Revolution, and The Founders didn't want to go
overboard. Which is why they made a constitution which is quite
open-ended.

	Humorous Point: Wouldn't it have been hard to call the
American Revolution the French Revolution, especially since the
American Revolution occured in America,and the French Revolution in
France?

--
 Cousin It                                    cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
    I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't
         always agree with them    -President George Bush
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:09:47 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Rhodes Scholars (Re: read my lips: I have family values)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Andy:
[the real part of the message deleted]
>ps - A "Rhodes Scholar" is a recipient of a scholarship set up by a
>rich, but dead, oppressor and exploiter of Africa.  (Said recipients
>attend various colleges in the UK.)  There used to be a country named
>after him.

FYI, Clinton was (is ?) a Rhodes Scholar, and studied at Oxford. Given
that the programme has been going since the early part of this
century, it is surprising that it has taken so long before a Rhodes
Scholar has been in contention for the presidency of the USA.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:00:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Jamie, KAT, and Jimbo

From Jimbo
>>Let's distinguish carefully between 'ex post harm' and 'ex ante harm'.
>>I am ex post harmed whenever some action actually harmed me.  For
>>example, if you put poison in my coffee and I drink it, then I am
>>actually harmed.  I am ex ante harmed whenver some action might
>>reasonably be expected to harm me.  For example, if you put poison
>>in my coffee but I just happened to pour it out (and I never ever
>>found out about it or anything like that) then surely I was not
>>ACTUALLY harmed.  Hell, I don't even know it happened.

From Jamie:
>Ok, I am willing to accept that ex ante harm in this sense might
>qualify as a kind of harm. In response to Richard, I might say
>that for all that Jimbo has said, the kinds of harm admitted
>might be only physical sorts, or maybe clearly empirically verifiable
>sorts, so that there isn't any necessary appeal to an evaluative
>concept involved.

        I do not see how the fact that this is harm of "only a
physical sort" or "clearly empirically verifiable" provides
reason to believe that it does not involve a "necessary appeal to
an evaluative concept."  Taking the latter claim first, what is
involved in empirically verifying that something is a HARM (as
opposed to, say, a benefit or simply a change)?  I can empirically
verify that if Jimbo had drunk the poison that he would be dead,
but the claim that this HARMED Jimbo depends upon making a value
judgment concerning his being dead.  Assume that the person who
put the poison in the coffee was a friend who, at an earlier time
when Jimbo was lucid, came to the conclusion that when Jimbo had
totally lost his capacity to reason that death would be preferred
to continued life.  Is he "harming" Jimbo?  The answer, in this
case, is not obvious.  And I argue that the fact that it is not
obvious is grounded on the fact that we are uncertain of whether
there is anything bad in Jimbo's death.

        Also, I (for one) am willing to accept that badness is
empirically verifiable.  I believe in a naturalistic reduction
of value claims to claims about the relationships between desires
and states of affairs--remember.

        As for "physical" harms not requiring an evaluative con-
cept, the above example also shows that whether a physical change
is a harm itself depends upon how the change is evaluated (or,
in many cases of the use of the term "bad," the value of those
types of changes generally).

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:56:54 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>>It works for any habitat that supports game, and any species that shares
>>those habitats.
>
>Not necessarily.

At that point, I assumed that I'd be reading a relevant example, where
hunters didn't protect a game habitat.  Instead, I read about another
case where they didn't protect a non-game habitat....

>And you still haven't explained how to extend the model to habitats that
>don't have game species.

That's because it isn't obvious that such habitats exist because
hunters have a very elastic defn of "game".  If there's really a
habitat doesn't support anything that hunters would like, we can deal
with it as a special case, but that's no argument against using the
hunter strategy everywhere else.

Note that Kerry's argument against owned resources was that SOMETIMES
owners screw up.  That's a huge improvement over the alternative;
that's how it "helps".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:52:28 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> You are "pro-choice" regarding gay rights?  So people can "choose"
> to be gay?

KAT>   Missy, you may pick one candy out of this bag.  (You cannot
       see the inside.)

Missy> What are the "choices"?

KAT>   Strawberry and lemon.

Now that doesn't mean that you can choose but rather those are
the choices.

(There.  Who said all those months being on the list and close
to 1000 posts would not come handy one day.  :-)

It was in that sense that I meant by "choice."  Honest!  I am not
trying to weasel out of it.  However, I admit it was a bad choice
of word.

> Then it is behavior and not an unchangeable condition.  Why, then,
> shall it be priviliged over other forms of behavioral choice?

Even *if* homosexuality was a choice, which then makes heterosexuality
a choice too (see the footnote), I still believe the two "choices"
should receive identical legal privileges.  Note that I said legal.
In other words, if your church wants to deny homosexuals service
or marriage, I don't have any problem with that.  Why do you people
think denying insurance privilege or joint filing tax status to
homosexuals is hating the sin and not the sinner?

--Missy P 2 B

--KAT

Footnote: Jay used to say homosexuality is a choice and is a temptation.
          And I kept asking him "if homosexuality is a choice then
          heterosexuality is choice too."  Then I would ask him if
          "chose" to be heterosexual or if he was EVER tempted to
          engage in homosexual activity.  Needless to say he never
          answered.  Would *you* like to?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:10:39 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/labor unions

Hi, Mike -- long time, no see :)
>        Robert here touches on a strategic and philosophical dilemma of the
>labor movement.  Labor unions exist to secure benefits for their members.  If
>the union leaders can obtain greater benefits in contract negotiations by
>promising to forego strike tactics, should they do so?  By doing so, they
>relinquish labor's most (and in reality only) weapon.  Also, they undermine the
>idea of transindustrial solidarity.  But, again, if they can benefit their
>members, should they agree to these compromises?  What is the list opinion on
>this?

Mightn't it depend on the nature of the specific agreement?  That is, if
the union wants x and y, and management says "OK, you can have x and y but
you can't strike ever again", then the union could be in trouble in future
negotiations.  If, on the other hand, the agreement were "we'll give you x
and y, and you agree not to strike for 2 years", the union might be in a
better position.  Of course, I'm operating on the premise that both sides
will take as much as they can get, and to h*ll with everyone else :)

>        On an side note, will anyone on the list be in Lawrence, Kansas,
>between 16 September and 20 September?  I will be their to present a paper at
>the Mid-America History Conference, but it appears that I will have some time
>to kill.

I wish I were!  It's a really pretty campus, from the little I've seen.
Say "hi" to the Natural History museum for me -- it's the source (2 or 3
generations removed) of my academic/professional roots.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:01:40 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful

I guess Carl and I have something in common.  Jamie knows
what we are trying to say better than we can say it ourselves
and in Carl's case in particular better than he *knows*.   :-)

The Jamie part was not a joke.  I meant it.  He DID explain
what I wanted to say better.  Thanks!

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

> There are two possible responses to the claim that criminal trespass
> is a harm. (I put that claim in Jimbo's mouth. I'm sure he will
> correct me if my oral surgery was unwarranted. By the way, I'm
> letting him out on probation.)
> One is ridicule. How could it possibly harm me if someone
> swims in my pool when I am not home, leaving no trace? The other
> is to admit that "harm" is value-laden. We (or anyway some of us)
> think that trespass is a harm because we think it is wrong.

How about a third option.  If you trespass, you have put me in
danger of harm, kinda like shooting at me and missing it.  And now
as a result of your trespassing I don't feel as secure any more
and therefore a harm is done.

> If the latter response is correct, then KAT's claim about
> explanatory priority is wrong.

Thank you your Czarness.  So my "argument" is either "ridiculous"
or wrong.       :-)?

> I'm trying not to take sides, you'll notice.

Sure!

> Jamie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU