HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,austin.general
Subject: BOOK BANS ON RISE
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:53:26 GMT
Reply-To: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch/131072)
Followup-To: tx.politics
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX


*10  CENSORSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM:  BOOK BANS ON RISE
     A report on book banning released yesterday shows a 50%
increase last year over the 1989-1990 school year in censorship
challenges in America's public schools (multi cites).
"Censorship is exploding in our public schools, a trend that
poses a direct and serious threat to the mission of education in
a free society," said Arthur Kropp, president of People for the
American Way.
     The WASH. POST notes that People for the American Way's
study, "Attacks on the Freedom to Learn," reports that the
"religious right" increasingly has been fighting "objectionable"
textbooks and classroom materials.  Censors were successful in
41% of the cases, writes the POST (Jordan).
     Books banned range from classic literature to modern
stories.  The POST reports that John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and
Men" was the "most frequently challenged book during the last
school year."  Other books high on the censorship list include:
Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath," Mark Twain's "Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn," J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye,"
Alice Walker's "The Color Purple" and Madeleine L'Engle's "A
Wrinkle in Time."
     The most frequently cited reasons for calling for a book's
removal from the school were its being: "at odds with the
challenger's religious views; satanic; new age; or anti-
Christian."  Profanity and sexual references were other reasons,
according to the POST.
     Kropp said all regions of the country were affected, but
most challenges were reported in Fla., Texas, Calif., Ore. and
Minn. (Cohen, Newark STAR-LEDGER)
     Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council asked:  "Are
parents to have no voice at all in selecting the materials their
children will use in school?"
     Kropp:  "We support a parent's right to have his or her
child 'opt out' of a particular assignment.  But it is not in the
interests of parents or children when a few individuals seek to
deny all students access to materials they don't like." (9/2)
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to those of IBM     |       Austin, TX
        The wages of sin are death, but after taxes are
          taken out it's just sort of a tired feeling.
From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-a
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:14:24 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <3077.91.uupcb@cutting.hou.tx.us>
david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) writes:
 
>RT>        No.   That's not at all correct.   The  "religious right"
>RT> has much the same theology and ideology as the  "founding fathers".
 
        ...
>
>        Actually, a great many of thr "Founding Fathers" were Deists,
>which means that they followed the creeds of NO organized religion
>(This is certainly true for Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Ben
>Franklin).
 
        Any many others were "theists".   But either way,  they
acknowledged some kind of responsibility to  "god".   Personally,
I don't follow the creed of any organized religion,  but I think
you can tell that I do embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
(that's not supposed to make me seem better or worse than anyone
else in this thread)
 
        David,  we could go 'round and 'round on this.
Tell me your source and I'll read it.   (I'll tell you mine,
but it's on loan,  so check back in a couple of days)
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4597 alt.politics.bush:3449 alt.politics.clinton:3470
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Republican Candidates
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:06:11 GMT
 <1992Aug24.043748.21817@news.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.043748.21817@news.columbia.edu>, Elizabeth G. Levy writes:

> In article <qDFyr*LR0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug20.030841.11841@technology.com>, Richard Murphy writes:
> >> 
> >> I'm waiting for them to dump Quayle and replace him with you, Jim.
> >
> >Mr. Quayle is much better qualified than I.
> 
> Because Quayle has better hair.

Not just better, more of it.   8) 8) 8)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: kossack@owlnet.rice.edu (Jordan Marc Kossack)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Plan
Followup-To: tx.politics
Reply-To: kossack@qvi.com
Organization: A Glorified, Overheated Swamp
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:15:25 GMT

In article <fjQBr*+V0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
|> You have no evidence that Bush lied.  He did break his promise, but that 
|> is after the fact, and under coercion from the House.  For Bush to have 
|> lied, he would have had to intend to raise taxes when he said it.

	Under coercion from the house?  Ha!  What ... was Ted Kennedy 
   going to drive him home if he vetoed the tax increase?    :-)  

	Let's face facts.  George Bush is an oathbreaker.  He promised 
   not to raise taxes and he told pro-RKBA folk that he would not sign  
   anti-firearms legislation.  Then, during a single term, he OK-ed a 
   tax raise AND signed a rifle import ban.  That's two strikes against 
   George Bush in my book.  I could joke and say that Quayle is the 3rd 
   strike, but to be honest, I have more personal respect for Quayle 
   than I do for Bush.  Regardless ... 

	Read my lips - no second term.   


-- 
Jordan M Kossack  | You're so vain, you probably think this .sig is about you.  
 kossack@qvi.com  | You're so vain, I bet you think this .sig is about you. 
 +1 713 240 2073  | Don't you?  Don't you?  Don't you?      
  
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:25:46 GMT

Patrick F. McGehearty <patrick@convex.COM> writes:

>The basic argument is that the American Medical Association (AMA) functions
>as a labor union by making it more difficult for those not part of their
>organization to compete with them for work.  Specifically, the AMA has a lot
>to say about what it takes to get a license to practice medicine and what is
>considered practicing medicine.  Just for comparison, in Mexico, a
>pharmacist can prescribe a wide variety of lesser drugs for common
>illnesses, whereas a pharmacist in the US would be in big trouble if he
>provided these same drugs without a doctor's prescription.  The position of
>the AMA is that we need to be protected from frauds and incompetents.

Do you propose that we allow anyone to practice medicine, much as
we allow anyone to fix cars?

Presumably, it would be hard for those without medical degrees
(or high school diplomas) to get malpractice insurance at reasonable
rates. On the other hand, one might choose to simply practice
uninsured, unless there is some government regulation (more
government interference?) to prevent practice of medicine without
insurance.

Maybe future pre-med students can work their way through college
by doing open-heart surgery, instead of waiting on tables.

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Ab
Date: 1 Sep 1992 09:15:03 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Aug31.174814.26236@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>In article <exuptr.410.714853664@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
>|>> BTW, did you know suicide is illegal in Texas?
>This, and similar statutes in other states, are as asinine as the bill [...]

Actually, this one serves a purpose: it gives the legal system a way to force
a suicidal person to get psychiatric help. I agree that someone who has
successufully committed suicide is beyond the reach of the legal system...but
someone who does so unsuccessfully needs help, and will get it.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Church and state (was Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion)
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:56:52 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <16854DD1A.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
[after admitting that satanism is a religion]
>You also don't have to give tacit approval to them.

Only if you give no tacit approval to any other religion. You *cannot* favor
one religion over another. Even your definition of the separation of church
and state - keeping the state from messing with churches - applies equally to
*all* churches.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Keep in mind that Amateur Radio As We Know It Today will cease to exist
            at midnight tonight." -- Dave Newkirk, WJ1Z
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4728 alt.politics.clinton:3766
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Dueling supports
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:58:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <21444@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. H writes...
>In article <1992Aug31.220001.2595@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>>"Socialist" media? This sounds like the communists are coming.
>>When the election comes around, look at who your local newspaper
>>supports. Look at who it supported in 88'. Time will prove you 
>>wrong.
> 
>Newsweek or some other magazine did a report on which candidates
>the media supports.  The conclusion was that while they support
>both sides, they support the left about 4 to 1, measured in terms
>of dollars.

I've seen a report from a book by Ben Bagdikan that says the exact 
opposite. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was overwhelmingly
conservative. I can also say that of the local newspapers here in the 
San Francisco Bay Area, 6 out of the 7 large daily papers supported Bush
in 88'. And the San Francisco area is considered liberal. 

>John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
>UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
>Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:02:51 GMT
 <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP> <1992Aug30.062428.19135@posms.cactus.org>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug30.062428.19135@posms.cactus.org>, Randy Kirchhof writes:

> In article <dpEAr*vU0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug25.033348.26856@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:
> >
> >> I just noticed something. This whole election the Republicans have blamed
> >> Congress for the deficit and the recession, Bush was just along for the 
> >> ride. During the 80's, the growth we had was caused by Reagan. Why doesn't
> >> Congress get credit for that? After all, if someone is going to flack
> >
> >Probably because Reagan dragged the liberals (kicking and screaming) all the
> >way to the tax cuts.  The tax cuts are what made the economy boom.
> 
> 'scuse me for butting into a conversation to which I have not been
> a part, but in my opinion this statement is dead wrong. The
> economy 'boom' was due to a massive infusion of borrowed money and a
> reckless deregulation of public financial industries that amounted to
> handing the top 2% wealthiest people in this nation the keys to Fort
> Knox. The greedheads stole us blind. We'll be paying for generations. 
> The Reagan/Bush 'conservative' economics amount to the most gross abuse 
> of the public trust in the history of this nation. And yes, _everyone_
> is to blame. Starting at the top, through Congress, down to us. We
> let it happen.

You've been listening to the socialist media too long.

> It is unbelieveable to me that _anyone_ is still spouting
> Reaganomics. The numbers are in front of you in black and white. 
> Sit down sometime and divide the national debt by the population of
> of this country. Then compound that number by the best bond rate 
> that you can find; for 25, then 50, then 100 cycles. 

I'm telling you again.  The deficit is MUCH LOWER than it would have been
if a Democrat had been President!

[ more deficit stuff deleted...]

I agree that the deficit should be eliminated immediately.  The ONLY way to do
that is by cutting spending - anathema to the Democrats (and they are the folks
who control Congress.)


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Constitutional Interpretation (was Re: Pro-Choice)
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:27:34 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:

> In article <P5sZPB4w165w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
> Winemiller) writes:
> 
> >I think I'll elaborate a bit here: I accept the purpose of "justice" as long
> >as "justice" is defined as the intent of the law, as stated in its wording,
> >as intended by the lawmakers (which intent one can glean from arguments by
> >them within and without Congress).  Justice is then what the people, through
> >their legislators, desire to be encoded in law.  A judge, then, is prevented
> >from enforcing his own personal definition of "justice" which he makes up
> >according to his own moral view.
> 
> 	So, all of our justices know exactly and explicitly what the
> FF's meant by "due process", "equal protection", "unreasonable search
> and seizure", "cruel and unusual", and can happily leave their own 
> personalities at the door, and just go by the letter of the law.

Yes.  Justices (and us for that matter) _can_ know what those phrases mean,
because words (in their historical and cultural context) have meaning.

> I will stop here to point 
> out the benefit of claiming "original intent', as has Bork. It's a wolf
> (interpretation) in sheep's (non-interpreted, what they _reall_ meant)
> clothes.

Exactly the opposite is true.  One abandons "original intent" because one
believes that words have no meaning, which is nothing short of accepting
chaos.  If the truth be known, I think that original intent has been largely
abandoned because the offending justice can then exercise a tremendous
amount of power (s)he was never intended to exercise.  And that's very
dangerous, indeed.  I want justices who understand that they, too, must
submit to _laws_, not create them or "sit above" them.  Can you say
"oligarchy"?

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Fetal Brainwaves (was: Re: fetus vs. baby)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:33:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.174255.16447@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>And precisely how did such a rule get put into effect in a Usenet
>newsgroup?  Who put it into effect, and with what authority?
>
>This is Usenet, not an academic conference.
>This is Usenet, not a sciences conference.
>This is Usenet, not an engineering conference.
>This is Usenet, not a high school debate.  In point of fact, is it
>'supposed' to be a 'debate' at all?  Or is it 'supposed' to be a
>*discussion*.? 
>
>(If you) want this kind of 'verifiability', all I can suggest is that you hie
>yourself to some nice, academic conference.  This is Usenet.

	Kinda reminds me of the "Not me" gremlin in "Family Circus". "Hey,
this is Usenet". You did come into this group like a ball of fire. Perhaps,
had you entered the group as though you don't know everything about
everything, and had you not resorted to the word "wrong" over and over
again, your current "This is Usenet" gremlin wouldn't be eating your
own shorts. You've lost credibility. John has totally dismantled you,
in my eyes. Yes, he's insulting. He also backs up what he says, and
even admits when there is no backup. So, what I see, watching your
threads w/ JFH, is you being very inconsiderate of him, vice-versa,
and he backs up his posts- you don't. Now, John's no saint (none of us
are), but he's lapped you a few times. Will you settle for that? Or,
will you back up your posts?
	BTW, this all reminds me of the analogy I like to use for 
Usenet- traffic. We all tend to be a bit more aggressive than if we sat
in the same room together. Fine. But, what John doesn't understand
(and apparently you either) is that being able to get away with any
conduct is the ultimate test of how one conducts him/herself. It
will quickly seperate those with self-respect from those with pride.
Pride does not have to be earned.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"They say 'David, what shall I do? They wait for me in the hallway'.
I say 'Don't ask me- I don't know any hallways."- David Bowie, "Scary Monsters"
From: gamble@owlnet.rice.edu (Ben Gamble)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:49:11 GMT
Organization: Tennessee Ernie Port Authority

In article <mumble> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:
|        No,  it's  "homosexuality".   It's spelled out in hard-to-
|mistranslate wording in Romans ch1 v27.

Maybe.  My greek is pretty weak.  But what you haven't explained is
why anyone should listen to Paul anyway.  <-:

-- 
Ben Gamble                              B0 f- t+ w- g+ k- s- m- e r-v p
gamble@owlnet.rice.edu 
       Oh ye who go about saying unto each other:  "Hello sailor":
       Dost thou know the magnitude of thy sin before the gods?
From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:40:55 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Aug24.171727.15786@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> In <21394@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Actually stop and think about this one for a moment.  I'm sure that the
>>Christians Hitler sent off to the ovens spit on anyone that said "Have a
>>Nice Day."
> 
> Gee, the de riguer mention of the Nazis and Hitler, now.

	I'm afraid I gotta go with Fred on this one.  After all John, didn't
you hear those stories of Christians singing in the colliseum when the Romans
put them in there with the lions?  Wouldn't a Christian pray for the
forgiveness of their tormentors?  I guess by your definition of "Christian"
that would not be the case...  The doctrines that I have read say to turn the
other cheek, but nothing about sneering "Asshole" after your head is turned...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:11:27 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Aug24.153121.25431@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, james berry writes:

> You know I have never heard one serious person ever say they wanted to
> take away your right to own hunting weapons.  There has of course been 

Talk to some of the wacko animal rights activists sometime.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Roe vs. Wade is bad law? (Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion)
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:44:42 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <16854DD1A.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth) writes:

>        State and local governments have lost a lot of autonomy.
>I wish that they could get it back.   "One set of laws"  really doesn't
>always make sense.   I say,  "hands off,  Fed!".   Unless there's unfair
>treatment of one local group against another local group,  the Fed should
>stay out of it.

I think you've really hit on one of the problems that both
pro-choice'rs and pro-life'rs have with Roe vs. Wade: it's a really
bad piece of law.

The constitution says next to nothing relevant to the abortion issue.
In fact, in the year 1800 in this country, their were no laws banning,
prohibiting, or limiting abortion on the federal, state or local
books. Abortion techiniques and devices were frequently featured in
medical journals and publications. Could abortion be one of those
'rights' not to be denied or disparaged by the constitution? As men,
the founding fathers probably didn't give it any thought.

So what's the opinion of tx.politics readers? Is abortion even a
constitutional issue? Should it be relegated to state's rights? How
about the Republican proposed constitutional amendment?

Rick R. (Not Troth)

-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
#                                                                           #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
From: boyd@turtle.fisher.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-choice vs. Pro-Life vs. Anti-Abortion (Re: fetus vs. baby)
Date: 25 Aug 92 10:51:09 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Fisher Controls International, Austin, TX

In article <Le2RPB2w165w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
> boyd@turtle.fisher.com writes:
>
>> In article <T51iPB2w164w@keys.lonestar.org>, cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
>> (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>>
>> >            ...  Secondarily, the fact that so many people _are_
>> > religious might be evidence that their _is_ something supernatural,
>> > outside of all of us.  ...
>>
>> Once upon a time a great many people thought the earth was flat, did that
>> make it flat?
>
> No.  But your point is misdirected.  A vast number of people believe that
> there is something supernatural.  What they _don't_ agree upon is the nature
> of that supernatural --- which is the correct parallel to your 'earth is
> flat' statement.  To deny spiritual reality is to put yourself in a very
> tiny minority in the history of the world, indeed.
>
You've obviously missed my point completely.  The point is that just because a
large number of people believe something, their beliefs alone do not make it
fact.  Regardless of my beliefs or your beliefs, the fact that so many people
are religious is absolutely NOT evidence that there is something supernatural,
outside of all of us.  We must look elsewhere for this evidence.  BTW - books
written by man are not evidence either.

And how can anyone deny spiritual reality when there is no spiritual reality,
but only spiritual beliefs?
--
Tom Boyd     (512)832-3611             "She looked fluffy,
boyd@turtle.fisher.com                       but she struck like a cobra!"