HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:50:54 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Look back and wrangle...the poverty thing again
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>it appears that
>>they are going to revive the tired old Reaganista rhetoric about
>>fraud in the system...naturally they'll intimate that most folks
>>who receive aid have homes, sports cars, large cash incomes from
>>selling Amway, etc.
>
>It appears to whom?  That is O'Andy's invention; no one else has
>mentioned fraud.

        I'll mention it :).

        Page 1A, USA Today, Dec 16, 1992:

                LUXURIES BILLED TO MEDICARE

        Federal hospital audits are uncovering a litany of questionable
Medicare charges for items such as Super Bowl tickets and $770 antique pillows.
        The probe of 15 (just 15!--Brett) by the HHS inspector general shows at
least $42 million in "unallowable" overhead expenses...

        So at (say) $3000 a day, that $42 million could fund 14,000 days of
intensive care, or at (say) $100/exam, 420,000 annual checkups....

        But hey, there's no fraud anywhere.  Let's just label those who imply
there is as tools of the rich and anti-poor.

>>>        Carol Mosely-Braun (Senator-elect from Ill.) got stung by this when
>
>Why should she have been stung?  Democrat character doesn't matter.
        :)

>-andy
Brett'
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Followup to MMORSE
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:41:17 GMT


>Dear Jimbo,
>  With respect, I don't believe you quite took my distinction between
>tolerance and discrimination. All I meant to say is that if a behaviour
>is legally unobjectionable, i.e. in *principle* not to be subjected to
>legal interference unless it makes its way into the public sphere (viz.
>screwing on the job or in public, as per my example), then it MAY be that
>there are no other reasonable grounds to *condemn* it. 

Well, this is indeed true.  The reading of math books makes for a fine
example here.  Such is not legally objectionable, and there don't appear
to be any other reasonable gounds upon which to _condemn_ it.  So?

>>mention art, has been poking holes in the Organon for two millenia, and
>it is hardly an authority to be invoked as definitive.

?!

There's an easier way off the hook for you, no need to bring poor
old Ari into the fray.  Suppose someone gives an argument.  Suppose
further that the argument is not based on anything rational, but is
instead based on some nonrational or irrational motives.  Then it is
not sufficient to merely point out the nonrational motives, in order
to show the argument false.  The argument must stand or fall on its
own.

This does not preclude investigation into motives, of course, but merely
points out that the motives for uttering some proposition, per se, do
not determine the truth or falsehood of that proposition.

So the way off the hook for you is to notice (a) that (and this is
the case here) no argument was given for the proposition in question
and (b) there is some evidence to indicate that the argument is
grounded in irrational feelings.  Note well that I did go ahead and
let you off the hook... since the other fellow didn't give any argument.
(And still hasn't, to my knowledge.)

>As long as sexual behaviour does NOT invade the public space (and, by the
>way, it is entirely consistent with this principle to say that the sexual
>exploitation of the pre-consensual does just this), then it is and should
>be out of the hands of the law. And, I wanted to say, of self-appointed
>vigilantes, too. Okay?

I agree totally.

Let me get this straight.  I was under the impression that you were calling
your hapless discussant inconsistent for claiming that both (a) homosexuality
is immoral and (b) that it ought to be protected by law.  My point is
simply that, in and of itself, a position of that form may not be inconsistent.
There are plenty of things that I think are immoral, but which I think
ought to be legal.  

--Jimbo




Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:59:51 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: your mail

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>>Any ideas on who will be Surgeon General?  I wish that it could be Dr. Koop
>>again, but he may not want the job back.
>>
>>Evelyn Duncan
>
>        Rumor has it that it's Joycelyn Elders.

That's funny. I thought it was already announced. Maybe I am either
mis-remembering or have misread the NY Times?
I thought the Times reported this morning that Clinton had named
Elders.

>However, unless Antonia Novell
>steps down, she will remain SG until 1994.

Huh. I didn't realize that.
Why is Surgeon General more like Fed Reserve Chair than it is like
Secretary of State?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:19:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among poor

Thanks Brett for the explanation.



Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:56:30 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
>
>>One (admittedly only tangentially related) question for Doctor Pizz:
>>WHAT exactly do you think is wrong with homosexuality?
>>
>>I am delighted that you do not subscribe to Magic Book theory of
>>moral judgments. But I wonder what your alternative basis is.
>
>I'm rather interested, myself.

Hmmm.

Because, Doctor Pizz still hasn't answered that question.

He's explained why he thinks homosexuality is abnormal. I have no
idea why anyone thinks that's relevant, and find the whole discussion
rather humorous still.

I don't suppose Doctor Pizz is going to say that EVERYTHING abnormal
is wrong, is he? But he did say that he believes that homosexuality
is wrong. And he did warm my heart by disavowing Magic Book theory.

So what's the deal, Doc?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:13:36 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: your mail
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Any ideas on who will be Surgeon General?  I wish that it could be Dr. Koop
>again, but he may not want the job back.
>
>Evelyn Duncan

        Rumor has it that it's Joycelyn Elders.  However, unless Antonia Novell
steps down, she will remain SG until 1994.

        Elders is pro-abortion rights and supports condom distribution in
schools, which upsets the conservative crowd.

        Elders is a pediatrician (and fellow Arkansan of Clinton's).  She
really pissed of the anti-choice crowd when she said abortion foes should end
their "love affair with the fetus".

Brett'
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      homos having kids
Date: 19 Dec 1992 15:29 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181817.AA14122@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,       
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>Jamie pisze:
> 
>>> > [Caius writes:] Homosexuals cannot have kids.
>>>
>>> That is false. In fact, it is very obviously false. Anyone who bothers
>>> to think about it will see that it is false.
>. . . . 
>What about 2*2=4? Is it also very obviously false?

Dear sir,
	I suggest you reread note 26959.

FLAME ON!!!
And you should be aware that there are more than one way to fill in the
following blank:  2 _ 2 = 4.
FLAME OFF!!!

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:03:56 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Tim,

    Yes, I agree that discrimination is wrong, but that private
businesses shouldn't be FORCED to be non-discriminatory.  However, if
government fundings, and programs were to be made unavailable to them,
that is fine.  In other words, government can punish businesses by
refusing to do busineess with them, or cutting off any governmental
assistance, but not treat them as criminals for running their own
affairs in a questionable manner.  Government should stay OUT of the
way businesses conduct themselves, unless the governmetn is a client,
and then they can simply switch to another company.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:47:30 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Diversity of Views at Clinton's Summit?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I caught of few minutes (15 or so) of Clinton's Economic Conference last
> night.  With the exception of one speaker who said bank regulators were
> choking off credit, there seemed to be little disagreement over "what
> should be done".  The consensus seemed to be that Clinton's plan was sound.
>
> My question is how diverse were the opinions?
> Was there anyone there saying the 16th Amendment should be repealed? that we
> should go to a flat tax? a 50% top rate?, etc.
>
> just wondering,
>
>  - David

  the opinions were as diverse as clinton wanted them to be, namely
not at all. did anyone happen to see milton friedman there? jack kemp?
paul volcker? lee iacocca? anyone who might have disagreed?

  one writer called it "the defining moment of the clinton presidency".
my guess is that this is correct . . . just a big ol' love fest. or
maybe a circle jerk. take your pick . . .

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:07:47 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Schlesingerian cycles
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Just wondering if anyone out there has an opinion on the so-called
>"Schlesinger cycle" -- the theory proposed by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
>that once every 30 years or so, American government returns to a more
>activist public interest.
>
>I find it interesting, but I also note that Schlesinger really doesn't
>take the idea as far as he can.
>
>That is not to say that I believe that American politics is a slave to
>cycles per se; that would be foolish to think that.  But what do you
>think?
>Ellen

        I think we're on a pendulum.  The average person wants a centrist
policy, and the D&Rs keep swinging past the center...until the public brings
them back the other way...and so on.

Brett'
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:43:20 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re:
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

MWM,

     You are correct inassuming that I just joined the list yesterday,
so I did not see Caius' posting.  However, I must correct your
assumptions about the right wing.  I am extremely conservative, and I
support the Colorado Amendment 2.  However, I am NOT religious, nor do
I believe in imposing my moral beliefs on anyone.  However, I respect
the rights of any private business to impose whatever it wants on its
employees as a condition of their employment, provided it is made clear
to them before they are fired, such that they can have a chance to
conform.  I believe that homosexuals or heterosexuals should have the
right to keep government out of their bedrooms, and be allowed to do
whatever they want in private.  However, I do agree that the society
should not be forced to accept it as normal either.  The point is that
while I think homosexuality is wrong, and abnormal, I do not believe
that we should prevent people from doing it.  We all have the right to
do what we want.  However, privately owned businesses and the like
should have the right to control what activities can be undertaken on
their premises, and to impose whatever they want as long as people are
made aware of the restrictions before punitive action is taken.

Pizz
From: kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG (KirkpatrickH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: rush spike racism
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:04:15 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>Yes, and I would submit there is no such thing as a racist.  Now we're
>getting into semantics again, but I would guess that one of the reasons
>people insist on calling other people "racists" is because they're too
>afraid to admit that they're all part of a system called "racism."

>That's how I feel; I'm sure y'all are going to shoot big semantic and
>logical holes in this post.  Go right ahead.   :)

>Ellen


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Applause

>people insist on calling other people "racists" is because they're too
>afraid to admit that they're all part of a system called "racism."

One question? Why don't we start calling each other "people" (brother/sister
would be better but let's start slow). We could then call our system "society".
And treat each other better also.

Maybe it is because we are so convinced in our rules and the rules that govern.
I would like to propose a different system. Let's, instead, teach people to
think for themselves (not easy). Can it be done? One might make the point that
the rules are too restrictive. (I.e. My politics is my religion; is my
philosophy; is my politics; yet the rules for this forum say that "Espousing
your religious views is not political.) I have espoused my religious views
here.


Just for thought,
Kirk

/*When a love remains, though everything is lost,
we will pay the price, but we will not count the cost.*/
----Neil Peart
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:26:27 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Considering the season and, uh, with all due respect to interested parties,
> shouldn't we record the first case of artificial insemination as 4 B.C.?
> Devoutly,
> Michael

   if you want to look at it that way . . . i personally would have
to classify it as either fornication (sex with someone she's not
married to? shocking . . . ) or as incest, sort of (god was the father,
god was the offspring . . . i wonder if it was the same person of the
trinity in both cases?).

  if it was artificial insemination, wouldn't we have to postulate
some sort of divine masturbation? i wonder if any known theology
could handle that? (sorry :) just couldn't hold it back :))

  if i say any more, i'll probably be struck by lightning. later.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:37:55 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: racism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Reitman, Attorney to Be" at Dec 17, 92 1:33 pm

Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be pisze:
>>
>> In article <9212171545.AA05336@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,
>>  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>> >So you think, that when a white policeman hits a black hooligan it's
>> >racism.
>> >
>> >And the opposite is "social justice" and "minority rights"
>>
>> Not necessarily.  The general inference is that there are racial overtones in
>> both cases, but that historically, it's more likely to be racial in the white
>> attacks black situation.
>>
>>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum

I think it's racial to catogorize poeple by race in making any judgements.

Caius.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Marrou
Date: 18 Dec 1992 21:00 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181802.AA13880@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,      
   Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>What is the political and economical program of Marrou? I've heard he had taken
>part in all 50 states elections and had been ignored by the media.

He was the Libertarian candidate, and that pretty much sums up his platform.  
If I had a copy of the Oregon voter's guide, I'd upload his statement.

The reason Libertarians aren't taken seriously is that just about the only
place they attract a large constituency is Alaska, and they don't have $3
billion like Perot.

							Dan, ad nauseum
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      70% Human
Date: 17 Dec 1992 13:22 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92121704225944@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,      
   CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes...
>Just heard on ABC World News Now that women make $.70 for every $1.00
>men make in the US; that's _down_ from last year (I think they said it had
>been $.72).

It used to be that the ratio might be at least partially misleading because it
failed to take seniority into account.  If this statistic is true, however, it
means not only do we have a glass ceiling problem, but a slippery floor.

>. . . . 
>Speaking of that, another report spoke of the Vista, CA School Board.  Seems
>the Christian Right won a majority there last month, and were sworn in
>yesterday.  One of the new members is on staff at the "Institute for Creation
>Studies".  First item on next month's agenda: teaching creationism in the
>schools.

Ah yes, it appears Duane Gish and his f(r)iends are still at it.  Considering
the Supreme Court has ruled that mandating "balanced treatment" is no good,
why can't they just get the point that they are violating the First Amendment. 
See Aguilar v. Louisiana(?) (1987).  Not to mention their "science" is pretty
bad.  I've read some of it, and even I the law student and East Asian Studies
major can spot junk.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:27:58 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: rightist
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Dec 4, 92 11:45 am

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:

>>
>> >Right-wing???? Rightist??? Do you call Nazis right-wing???
>>
>> Yes, I call Nazi's "rightists," as Fascists have been called since
>> their origin. At the risk of seeming sarcastic (I'm dreadfully ill,
>> so if I am, I don't mean to be), this has been "accepted" terminology
>> in the political and historical worlds for over fifty years. I do not
>> feel I've misused the term.

The Nazis tried to call themself rightist just to gain people supprt, bu
that DOES NOT mean that they really are. It is not a proof.
The terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media, who want to
confuse the real terminology.

>> I beg to differ with you. By most accounts, the "hooligan rightist"
>> government of the Nazis killed lots of people, both on their way to
>> power, and definitely after they took power. One suggests you perhaps
>> should read some standard analysis of the Nazi regime before
>> dismissing my labels out of hand.

I have studied the Nazi regime quite well and i can't see why should i call
it rightist. They have centrally planned which factory is to produce which
parts to the tanks and planes. And they discriminated some sort of german
citizens, because they were different.

Do you call it rightist? Maybe you should also call The Soviets rightist?
They bahaved in a similar manner, and produced similar ideology. Maybe you
call Cambodian regime rightist? Is it also an accepted terminology?

Yes, I think you are misusing the term. Nazis were not rightist. Neo-nazis
who kill people nowadays are not rightist.


Caius.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:43 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212142156.AA10496@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>,       
  Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes... 
>There are differences between voluntary trades and "your money or your
>life"; one of them is "what happens if I refuse?".  Which category do
>taxes fall into?

Taxes are not a contractual obligation, unless you consider Rousseau's Social
Contract.  They are a statutory requirement.  Therefore, if you fail to pay,
you will be subject to prosecution.  Statutory duties are one of the major
cases when you can be hit for not doing something.  (Contracts, BTW, are
another :-) )

					        Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU