HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: SCC BBS!  Garden City, MI
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:53:58 EDT
From:         kevin wittmer <flex%sccbbs@UUNET.UU.NET>

Hello, I read about the email mailing list you offer in the book
EcoLinking. I am a college student attending a community college
in a west suburb of Detroit. I am very intersted in the topics
of Political Science and would greatly appreciate you adding me
to your mailing lists.  Thank for your time.

My internet address is  flex%sccbbs@uunet.uu.net

Thanks again.
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, 11 Sep 1992 09:26:44 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)

Hi:
Missy J. wrote:
> > Population is not the problem.  And it is even less of a problem in
> > the United States, where the population growth has remained below
> > replacement level since 1972.
> >
> > We aren't having too many children; we are having too few.

And Andrew MacRae (welcome back, stranger!) replied:
>According to my handy-dandy CIA World Fact Book of 1991, the birth rate
>for the US in 1991 was 15 births / 1000  while the death rate was 9 / 1000.
>
>Have you any citation for your claim?

While we're on the subject -- Dunstan is also right that consumption is
part of the problem.  And U.S. citizens consume something like 30% more per
capita than folks in other countries.  So a simple body count is
insufficient.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:23:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

I have a King James Version, a modern English version (I forget what they
call it) that I got from my neighbor who's a Jehovah's Witness, and a
Catholic version the chaplain at my old college gave to me.  I like all of
them for different reasons, and its fun to read the same parts and compare.
The only sort of Bible I don't have is the Jewish Publications Society one,
which is the next one I'm going to have to get.  There is also the Koran,
of which there are several nice translations (though I have yet to find one
I really like).

Chris Morrison, back like a bad penny.
CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
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:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:21:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

>>  Not that a law stating "Every citizen has the responsibility to
>>  vote" would be a bad idea...
>
>I disagree.  The way I see it, the people who don't bother to vote
>are precisely the people who have no business voting in the first
>place!
>
>The problem we have with 'political apathy' among our people wouldn't
>be solved by forcing people to go through the motion of voting.
>
>Wouldn't it be a better solution to change the voting process so
>that people would actually WANT to vote?  So that people would
>actually WANT to get involved?


      Yes, you're right (I was being a bit flippant in that post).
   So, how do we get people to want to vote?  Better candidates, of
   course!  Ah, that makes the question, How do we get better candidates?
   So that leads to the question, Why are the candidates so bad now?
   Or are they really?  Were they bad before and people just didn't realize
   it?  Or did they just recently become bad?  If so, why?  Eagerly awaiting
   some responses....

>--Jimbo


            G. Racz
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Misc.
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:05:51 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Andy Freeman writes, citing me:
>>It's seems to me that the question of whether rape may contain sexual
>>elements gets clouded because of the difference in the ways men and
>>women _tend_ to view and experience sex.  On the gentler, feminine
>>side is the perspective of hours of gentle kisses and touching and
>>emotional exchange, leading up to the act.  On the rougher, masculine
>>side is the perspective of sweaty flesh-slapping with some faceless
>>giver-of-pleasure.  Now, while it is true that good lovers also
>>consider the desires of their partners, men and women still do not
>>tend to see eye-to-eye on this (although many men and women will lie
>>to their partners so that they feel more secure).  Unfortunately, many
>>men are selfish and do not consider their partner,
> 
> There's nothing like biased stereotypes to get a discussion rolling,
> especially one that blames men for a situation that women are
> considerably more interested in maintaining than men are.  I'll see
> that pile of porn and raise with the thousands of romance novels, not
> to mention the responses to the described stereotypes.

I hope it was clear that I was talking about masculinity and femininity as
opposed to male and female.  We all contain some measure of masculinity and
femininity in balance, but males tend to behave more masculinely and females
tend to behave more femininely.  As for the last >> statement of mine, while
I'll certainly concede that many women are also selfish when it comes to the
needs of their partner, I think that men are worse (less "nurture" social
conditioning after all), and that this can lead to violence against women, the
subject in question.  Therefore, I fail to see any "biased stereotypes" in this
particular piece (although I do admit to having some).  And I do agree that
romance novels are easily as bad or worse than pornography in terms of
fostering rape fantasies, but I am completely opposed to the censorship of
either one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every Man and Woman is a Star.            |                    Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:44:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

I forgot to mention that 100% of the graduates of that screwy school in
New Hampshire went on to college.  That is what it was with all of the private
schools I went to.  With the public schools it was not so, although many of
had what would have been called gifted programs now.  But the private schools
all had smaller classes.  But on the other hand, the public schools had
better libraries.

Chris Morrison
Just thought I'd add my .02.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:44:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

George Washington obviously would know what morality was.  But you, or I,
or anyone might not agree with all of it or with how it applied.  I agree
with the 10 commandments and with the sermon on the mount as I understand it.
These are the basics.  Even if I don't accept the Christian parts I accept
the underlying morality.  But again, there are basic questions involving
whether scripture and the traditional teachings which
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:45:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: An easy answer to a little question

From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      An easy answer to a little question

>With this in mind, how can (and I am asking people who
>believe things like this) people wish to take rights away
>from people or prevent them from having rights just because
>of their sexual orientation?

Yeah, now I'm pretty sure that you're attacking a position which no one holds
(other that, possibly, David Duke).  I'd like for you to produce some quotes
from "many" conservatives which claim that homosexuals should be stripped of
their constitutional rights such as free speech, freedom of assembly, the right
to bear arms, the right to a trial by jury, or anything else.  My guess is that
you won't be able to do so.

        really?  so it's really david duke that is going around assaulting
        and killing gays?  i wonder where he buys his disguises?  i wonder
        where how he gets around to so many different places so fast?
        maybe god IS on his side.

        oh.  i get it.  the right to life is for feti, not gays.

Yes, many conservatives, myself included, believe that homosexuality is morally
wrong and yes, we believe that for mainly religious reasons.  However, I know
of no one who thinks that because they engage in an immoral activiy, gays
should therefore be denied the same rights which everyone else enjoys.

        really?  open your eyes.  robertsprg is posting all the time.
        and, like it or not, he represents the mainstream of america.

Of course, conservatives differ on how they would have the government treat
gays.  Many conservatives of the libertarian variety actaully advocate the
repeal of anti-sodomy laws and legal distinctions between gay and straight
marriages.  I personally agree with them on the former issue and disagree on
the later, but neither issue involves a "right," unless your definition of a
right is extraordinarily broad.  In any case, its still not the cut-and-dry
issue that you make it out to be.

If you'd like to educate yourself about the conservative movement and its
various strands, I'd be happy to refer you to some representative authors.
Your suggestion that conservatives, most of whom oppose "big government," are
like Nazis indicates an ignorance both of Nazism and conservatism.

>Json

Jason Zimmerman
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:11:18 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      ERA

 *** Resending note of 09/09/92 18:31

 >this is proof of idiocy and misstatement of the goals of such
 >people.  The ERA basically stated: "Equality of rights under the law
 >shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on
 >account of sex." and Congress could make laws to uphold it.
 ...stuff deleted
 > -Joe

 "...on account of sex".  Let me refresh your memory.  There was a great
 debate over the interpretation of the word sex.  Many claimed that *sex*
 meant gender only while many others read it as the *act* of sex.

 The sponsor(s) of the ERA denied that the sex act was in any way the
 intent of their amendment.  However, they were *LYING*.  They flatly
 refused to substitute the word *gender* which would have narrowed any
 possible future court interpretations.  Instead, they took the typical
 approach of the *caught in the act* crowd and simply claimed it was
 not necessary.  Their refusal to allow the change proved without a doubt
 that their real intent was indeed the *sex act*.  The ERA was not about
 equal rights for women.  It was about equal rights for gays, lesbians and
 pedophiles.  WAKE UP!

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:34:14 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>> >I am sure that you do not believe that protection/killing of animals
>> >is what environmental protection is all about.
>>
>> I believe that the distinctions that Leader wants to make are artificial.
>>
>  Then you do believe that protecting game is adequate protection of the
>    environment.? I'm not making a distinction. Habitat protection is
>    a small PART of the picture. There is a wide world outside the
>    hunting range, you know.

Look at Leader's examples.  "Contaminated fish", "air pollution", etc
are all in the "hunting range".  Moreover, the "environmental
activist" approach hasn't been as successful as the hunter approach.

>> >There are people eating
>> >contaminated fish, children developing brain tumors and leukemia from
>> >exposure to toxic waste, increasing numbers of people every day are
>> >getting sick from the air they breath, large areas of coastal waters
>> >are being dessimated from oil spills and other contamination,
>> >forests are dying from acid rain, whole countries are suffering from
>> >famine because of soil degradation resulting from cutting down TREES,
>> >solar radiation increases due to holeS in the ozone layer resulting
>> >in skin cancer becoming as common as pimples,etc. etc. the list goes
>> >on and on.
>>
>> Again, Leader distorts the direction and some effects, and assumes
>> that "environmentalists" have had effects they haven't had.
>>
> Are you saying that you don't believe thes things(list of environmental
>  problems) are true?

I'm saying that the direction Leader implied is wrong.

>I'm not making this stuff up.

Then why is it so wrong?

>  more sources than just your E-Mail. I'm just trying to make the
>  point that there are alot of MAJOR environmental problems that are
>  more important than the availability of animals for sport killing.

Ooh, a strawman.  I haven't claimed that the availability of
animals for sport hunting is a solution to environmental problems.
I've pointed out that making them available has environmental
effects.

>> Today's factoid; 80% of the Superfund money goes to lawyers and their
>> staffs, and that's one of the major successes of environmentalists.
> I won't dispute your 80% figure. Why are you saying this is a success
> of environmentalists?

Because it is pretty much a model implementation of the environmental
activist approach.  The effects didn't match the supposed intentions,
so I blame the means.  When advocates of those means don't learn from
experience, I doubt their intentions/competency.

> What sort of press are you implying that the environmentalists were
> advocating in this instance?

What have environmentalists blamed for Love Canal?  The chemical
company or the govt?

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:40:59 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hate the Sin not the Sinner
              13 Sep 1992 17:42:33 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

Yeah, so?  Jesus sat down with the sinners and ate with them.  He didn't
then go out and advocate for special rights for them.  In fact, he spent
an awful lot of his time making speeches against what they did.

Christians associate with sinners, but they call them by their right
name:  "sinners."  They don't say, "Go on and sin some more."  Following
after Christ, they say "Go, and SIN NO MORE."

If the sinners don't like it, they don't have to eat with us.  By the same
token, the Pharisees didn't say, "Oh, look.  This Christ is a bad guy because
he says sin isn't sin."  They didn't say, "Oh, look.  This Christ is a bad
guy because he sits with sinners."  They said, "Uh-oh.  This Christ is a bad
guy because he doesn't like us and conform to our culture, and
because he thinks he has the power to forgive sin.  He must think he's God.
We'll show him what's what.  We'll kill him.  That'll show him."

Didn't work, though.

He sat with sinners, he called sin what it was, and he didn't sin.  So
what's your problem with all of this?

BTW, if this goes much deeper into theology, I think we should take it off
the net.  This is still a bit political, but it's getting dangerous.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: homosexuality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 20:24:29 GMT

Gosh, but I'm floored this afternoon!  Kerry Stephenson has written
a wonderful little post which contains what I consider to be a pretty
decent ethical egoist argument!

Here is one way the ethical egoist confronts certain common ethical
dilemmas:  First, she posits some behavior which might superficially
appear to be in one's own self-interest.  (Kerry's example is a
love affair.)  Then, she spins out the many implications for one's
life (in the long run) of that behavior.  Finally, she shows that
what appeared at first to be in one's self-interest is actually
quite contrary to it.

Ought I to have a love affair?  No.  Why?  It is not in my long-run
self-interest to do so.  

Kerry also identifies one of the crucial roles played by moral
principles.  Firmly held moral convictions can keep one out of
trouble in those cases where one's own self-interest is difficult
to discern.  There is never sufficient time to think out ALL the
implications of some behavior in any given instance.  For this,
we utilize the unit-economy of moral concepts.  

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:22:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:14:16 EST macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU> said:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:54:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:
> >                                                               The 15th
> >does that.  So, the states can still prohibit voting for a variety of
> >reasons.
>
>
> The two most common being homelessness and convicted felons?
I'd say the most common being convicted felons.
I guess if you don't live anywhere, it would be hard to give you
a precinct.

But the state could constitutionally deny to a person born out-of-state
the right to vote.

> MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
-Travis
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 15:51:44 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: who loves you baby?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:02:19 CDT fred said:

>Macphil, why should I pay for your child to attend a private school
>when I can't afford the same priviledge for my own child? It is a
>very republican attitude to say "Let's just do it and not talk about
>who is going to foot the bill". As far as distribution of wealth is

I didn't say "let's just do it" and I didn't propose ignoring who
would pay for it.  I suggested we examine the thought of it and
then determine the rest of it.  I could just as easily propose your
attitude is that of a lazy liberal Democrat who isn't willing to work
harder or apply himself in order to better his life and expects to
live off of the efforts of others, but I'd never suggest such a thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:24:58 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful

Ok, I get it.
Here is what I was thinking. Given Jimbo's theory of what is a harm, we
can determine which things are harmful without making any further
evaluative judgments.
However, it is probably true that what Jimbo said about harm is
itself an evaluative theory. So, using *it* instead of some other
is in a sense making an evaluative judgment.

I should have appreciated the distinction in Richard's postings,
because it is one that pops up unnoticed in the theory of judicial
review, which I've been thinking about recently.

No harm done, I trust....

Jamie

(Isn't it peculiar that MacPhil corrected "doggy dog" but not
"for all intensive purposes"? What may we properly conclude?)
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, 11 Sep 1992 14:06:27 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

Hi, partner :)

>Oh, yeah.  One more thing.  Children who attend private schools
>average 100 points higher on the SATs than those who attend public
>schools.  And they do so at 1/3 the cost on a per-pupil basis.

Does that take socioeconomic status into account?  And could you give me a
hint on the cite?  I'm asking because I honestly want to know -- I've only
read about success rates from second-hand sources, and would very much like
to figure out which data are correct.

I certainly am willing to believe that private schools have lower costs,
and have no doubt that we could decrease costs in public schools.

One thing I've been "wishing", ever since that conference of Governors on
education, is that we could hear from more actual classroom teachers and
less from administrators and bureaucrats.  My gut-level feeling right now
is that we might accomplish more with more local control and initiative and
less top-down management.  What do you think?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:25:06 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful
              8 Sep 1992 18:35:04 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

> I understand less now than I did before you explained!

Well, I become like that when I step in...... territories
that I am not quite familiar with.

Let me try it this way.  (It has something to do with
identifying independent and dependent variables, kinda
like which one is cause which one is effect.)  Are people
rich because they have high salaries or do they have high
salaries because they are rich?  Are people black because
they are discriminated against, or are they discriminated
against because they are black?

> For example, dropping a candy wrapper in someone else's garbage can
> is not bad.  Neither is it harmful.  I mean, that is one of the reasons
> people have garbage cans... so that people who come by for a visit can
> drop trash in them!

> On the other hand, dropping nuclear waste in someone's flower bed
> IS bad, and IS harmful.  So I agree with you that it is impossible
> to tell from the example if a given action is harmful or bad.  But
> I still don't see the distinction you are trying to make between the
> two!

Ok, how about shooting gamma rays at someone's radar detector, is
that bad, harmful?  Faced with a new situation, how do you decide
it is bad?  Personally, I have no idea how to determine if something
is bad.  But I am almost confident I would know it if it was
harmful.  Then the *definition* "that which is harmful is bad"
would help me identify something as bad.

I don't know.  I am a bit unsure now whether I fully understand the
meaning of bad.  Maybe my argument goes better with harmful v.
immoral than with harmful v. bad.

> --Jimbo

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