HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG (KirkpatrickH)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: RE: Spike Lee and Racism
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:52:33 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>

>>Hence, I submit that HE [Spike Lee] IS RACIST, by my definition and
>>anyone's who think it means judging or treating people differently
>>based on their race.
>>
>>--Dr. Pizz--

>Not to arouse the anti-semantic crowd, but I think that your definition
>of racism more accurately fits the word discrimination.  As has been
>pointed out, conventional definitions of racism include beliefs of
>racial superiority and inferiority.
>
>Thus the statement that Spike Lee discriminates on the basis of
>race may be more tenable for you.  Of course you may have some quotes
>from Lee where he declares blacks superior to whites (or other races),
>in which case I'd be interested reading them.  While I don't agree
>with everything that Lee does, overall I think he's been a very
>positive force, both in terms of the opportunities that he has given
>to people and the issues that he has raised.

>...Rick

I'd have to disagree with your (their, our) definition of Racism. I think that
no useful purpose is served by separating "Idiscriminates on the basis of
raceI" and being a "racist". If you are "purposely discriminating on the basis
of race for any reason" you are a racist.

I BELIEVE, IMHO, that the secret to eradicating "Racism" from society is by
demonstrating, by example, that "Racism" is not a "Good Thing". When we
"change" the meaning of racism by definition, or any other "noble" method, we
are providing people with "excuses" to discriminate. Discrimination(Racism)
should not be tolerated in any form. Murder is not tolerated for any "excuse".
I BELIEVE , that methods such as equivocation are the MOST PREVALENT FORM OF
RACISM in the US today.

We are dealing with children here, small minds that need simple concepts. One
simple concept is "one cannot justify treating someone differently because of
their race."<---Notice the period, no buts, no excepts! IMHO, purposely (or
possibly otherwise) treating someone differently because of their race is
discrimination AND racism, again PERIOD! We can deal with the few exceptions
that "pop up" much more easily than trying to define when someone can react to
someone differently because of race.

I must wholeheartedly agree, Spike Lee, IMHO is a racist of the worse kind (one
that society justifies the behavior of rather than being repelled by it).

Again, IMHO

Can we define "Color Blind"<----notice the blind part.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:09:16 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: NORMAL

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:58:23 -0500 peas on earth said:
>
>>As I said before there is no strict definition of  NORNAL.
>>If you have one, please tell all of us. Maybe we can learn something new.
>
>Perhaps for the sake of shortening this argument (without using crisco)
>we might decide that there is a normal variation (diversity) within
>any population/area. If there is a group of significant size within a
>given population then it is "normal."
>
>For example if I study several groups of white carnations and find that in
>each larger group there are about 5% of them that are white with red
>coloration blotches near the stem, then I have a predictable trait
>and a "normal" variation.

I couldn't have put it better myself.  Aren't stats wonderful?

However, just to push the semantic argument a little further, Caius, if
there is no strict definition of normal, why is you definition of abnormal
so rigid?  Surely they are two sides of the same coin?
>
>
>>Caius.
>
>-other Andy


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:02:19 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)

>>>> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
>>>> the person who earned it.
>
>>> And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
>>> taken away from them.
>
>> Really?  I get money by trading things people want for their money.
>> They're free to buy elsewhere, but they want to make the trade.  While
>> I got it from them, I didn't "take it" from them.
>
>So I am in a restaurant eating.  After I am done (receiving the
>service) the owner asks for payment.  Do I have a choice there?

Sure, you got to choose whether or not you made the deal.

Feel free to point out where I made a deal with govt.

Some people may not deal with me unless I give a cut to govt.  That's
their choice.  What about deals I make with people who don't impose
such a condition?  What if I don't want to impose that condition on
people I deal with?  I know what happens if we substitute thugs in the
above.

>I admit that buying milk in the local supermarket is somewhat
>different (in the degree of voluntariness) than "buying" services
>from the government.  But the difference in not enough to term
>tax money as being confiscated money.  After all WE have elected
>those officials who enacted the tax laws.

Have we?  Someone elected them, but did I?

Suppose my neighbors get together and vote to take my stuff; they
outnumber me so they can let me vote without affecting the outcome.
Is that legit?  After all, I got to vote and lost the election, just
like with the govt.

>> Is all sexual intercourse involving males rape?  How about the "lord's
>> right"?  Does the answer depend on whether he's taking money or sex?
>
>I have no idea.  Does thermal conductivity increase with temperature?
>How about heat capacity, mean free path?

KAT doesn't know whether or not all heterosexual intercourse is rape?
Hmm.  I thought for sure that he'd think that the consent of the
parties involved was relevant.

The "lord's right" is the right of lords to "deflower virgins" in
their jurisdiction.  If said virgins don't consent, maybe KAT would
consider said deflowering "inappropriate"; I would.  (The word "rape"
comes to mind.)  Then we get to ask whether a "lord's right" to said
virgin's money is "appropriate".

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:36:23 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: your mail

>>If there is a place in the Universe where homosexuals are considered normal
>>let's send them there!

>Many of them went there already.  Remember San Francisco?

Brilliant Robert! And why do you consider it "normal" for there to
be homosexuals in San Francisco? Because you have identified it as
a place with a number of homosexuals!

Not to confuse Robert; but actually there is an abnormally large number
of homosexuals in SF given the normal distribution of that trait in the
population.


>---Robert

-other Andy
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: prime theories
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:22:25 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Dec 1992 11:24:28 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>> I remember a certain person who would not answer the following
>> hypothetical question:

>>        "If it can be shown that banning handguns would reduce
>>         crime, will you agree to it?"

> KAT "misremembers".  I said that I was unwilling to make that
> agreement in a discussion with KAT because he has a history of turning
> that into "so, you've agreed to ban handguns, so let's discuss that".
> I refused because it's hard enough to keep the discussion out of
> fantasyland.

Maybe Andy could cite just one (1) case that I have done that.
Otherwise maybe he should refrain from making such statements.

The question that I asked Andy regarding gun ban (long tome ago)
was indeed very relevant.  Let me explain by giving and example.
Just this morning, my daughter asked me to call in an order for
her.  I asked her why she would not do it herself.  She responded,
"but dad, I don't have the credit card number."  Then I offered
to give her my credit card number.  Then she gave me the REAL
reason why she didn't want to call: because she didn't feel like
it.

One could be against gun ban even if it reduces crime on the
basis of the second Amendment.  In order to save time, I tried
to find the REAL reason why Andy was against gun ban/control.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:17:30 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Uncl: new topic -- Queens controversy

>> Most likely, the "2" pages do not simply promote tolerance, but rather
>> acceptance.  In that light, the school board made the only possible choice
>> in refusing to condone, through curricula, perversion.  Responding to
>> filth with an attitude of repugnance is not a problem to be educated away.
>
>So instead we teach children that their parents (homosexuals DO have
>children in school, you know) are filthy, deviant and should be met
>with repugnance rather than respect and love.  Brilliant.

Really?  Where?  How many pages are devoted to that?

>Schools are not intended to indoctrinate homophobes.

So?  Do they?

Based on performance, they're not intended to teach R's either.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:52:01 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)

From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>

> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
> the person who earned it.

And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
taken away from them.

> - David

--KAT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:09:51 GMT

STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
>Rush's arrogance is an act.  Anyone that has seriously watched his show would
>be able to pick that up.  Is he racist?  There are black people working 
>for him
>and black people in the audience.  So I think not.   -Rich

Let me see if I can interpret this.

Your claim is that if an entertainer has black employees and
black fans, then that entertainer is not racist?

That doesn't sound like plausible reasoning, to me.  

Let me give an example you might agree with.  I think that a plausible
case can be made that Spike Lee is something of a racist.  To take a
representative example quotation to prove my point, note that Lee
claimed that only a black man could make the movie about Malcolm X.
I think that it isn't at all unplausible to interpret that as a
racist claim, i.e. a claim that a person's skin color determines the
content of his or her ideas or character.

But Spike Lee has black employees and many black fans.

--Jimbo



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:32:37 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA%SDSUMUS.BITNET@VM1.NODAK.EDU>
Subject:      A "right to discriminate?"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

  (righteously indignant stuff deleted)

>
> "Doctor Pizz," this view was discredited in adjudication and banned
> by law, because it was found to be a wrongful behavior in an
> enlightened society. Though it would appear that you agree with the
> idea of Plessy v. Ferguson and the insidious and infamous "Jim Crow"
> laws of the 1890-1920 period, let me clue you into something. It's
> 1992, and there is no need to return to the vile climate that
> discrimination was a big part of prior to the civil rights movement
> of the Fifties and Sixties. Get a life! This ain't the days of
> "massas" and "slaves," discrimination is a discredited philosophy.
> It it quite obnoxious to see someone actually express a" right to
> discriminate," and howl indignantly that that there is a "civil
> right" to engage in such odious behavior. VMS

  val,

    since you bring up plessy v. ferguson, what do you think of the
current trend towards black-only schools in several major cities?
how does this square with "separate but equal" and the various attempts
at desegregation? these would seem to be unconstitutional on the face
of it, but black leaders have applauded them and courts, at least to
my knowledge, have found them permissible . . .

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:31:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      soon dears soon

i cannot wait until this day is over.

the chorale singers at our xmas party really weren't *from* an old folks home.
they go sing *at* old folks homes.....but they were old. all looking over their
shoulders at 65+. anyway, they sang a bunch of old mitch miller tunes (val
i'm sure you remember your parents going through that awful phase). they even
handed out sheets w/the lyrics that came in the albums. the whole episode
went past roll-your-eyes-humorous into the realm of truly nauseating when i
realized, i didn't need the damn sheets....i knew all the words already.

at that point i went looking for some real booze, but all i came up w/was some
half decent cabernet and downed a couple holly-imprinted plastic cups of those
and then went and bummed a cigarette off a student in the hallway.

so how's the beer countdown doing w/out me???

you all have 30 minutes til beer time. use it wisely.

-linda
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 12:54:14 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>

Dan,

I was not commenting about the current situation when I referred to
allowing private businesses to have the freedom to conduct their own
affairs (as long as they violate no laws).  I was merely talking in the
sense of what SHOULD be the case.  Eliminate governmental regulations
over our private, social, and business lives, and we'll all be happier.
 The less government is involved in my life, the happier I'll be!

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:49:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: auto deaths, drunk driving, guns....

On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 01:35:27 EST Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU> said:
>         So, do you also agree that federal drug laws are
> unconstitutional? It would seem that you would.
Yes.  Unless it can be shown that they were grown out-of-state.
Someone here, I think, sometime, I think, suggested that the federal
law itself says that it would be useless to try to prove that the
drugs were grown out-of-state, so the law was automatically consti-
tutional.  This to me is pure (a la George Bush) "BUNK."
A federal drug charge would have to be something like "Transporting
drugs across state lines for immoral purposes."

>
> --
>    Cousin It                                 cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
>         "Time has changed the seasons, and I go on with
>            no reason, I feel my life slipping away"
>                      Riot "Bloodstreets"

-Travis
         "And though he never would wave goodbye,
          You could see it written in his eyes
          As the train rolled out of sight--
          Bye Bye"
          The Dream Academy, "Life in a Northern Town", January, 1986
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:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:53:03 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              wales" at Dec 15, 92 9:30 pm

jimmy donal wales pisze:

>> The other side of this discussion is apparently confused about the
>> effect that a gold standard would ahve on this process.  I think that
>> what he means to advocate is  FREE BANKING, rather than a GOLD
>> STANDARD.

FREE BANKING (which is another matter) is not possible without SOLID
CURRENCY.
In the Fractional Reserve System we now have, the Fed has many arguments
against Free Banking. They are artificial problems, and does not exist
under gold srtandard monetary system


>>
>> --Jimbo
>>

Caius.
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 18:57:10 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: progressive tax?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              17, 92 11:58 am

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> > I am saying that:
>>
>> > progressive tax is harmful to the economy. That's all. That means that
>> > everybody loses, noone wins.(maybe beaurocrats)
>>
>> Too bad most poor people are idiots.  Otherwise they would advocate
>> zero tax for the rich so that the rich could help the poor even more.
>>
>> What about negative tax?  Let's PAY the rich (instead of taxing
>> them) in order to help the poor even more than that.


The only purpose of the taxes is to finance gov't spending (army and police)

It is NOT the purpose of the taxes to grab money from SOME people and give
it to the OTHERS (bureaucracts taking the largest part).

Caius
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 12:47:05 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>

T.

Simply put, I said that government, as a representative of the people,
and a "company run by the people" has a duty to keep its house in
order, since every American is a "stockholder".  Hence, it has a duty
to be fair to everyone, and to create hiring policies that will be fair
to all its people. It is also in the best interest of government to
have strict hiring standards based on merit (not quotas, not
discrimination, but totally race/sex blind meritocracy).  Further,
government should not spend the people's money to benefit companies
with hiring and firing policies that are unfair.  However, that is
different from trying to legislate how private companies run their own
lives.  Of course, we need >some< control over business, but as little
as possible, and only in situations where it is doing something
"illegal", such as violating current foreign trade policy (which of
course should be made much more free as well), fraudulent practices,
misleading advertising, etc.  I do not think hiring and firing practice
should be an issue.  If people do not like a company's practices, they
can stage a boycott of their products.  Then, the people can impose on
business to act within the broad framework of non-offensive behaviour,
lest they be bankrupted.

Pizz
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:26:45 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Attorney General Picked?

In article <01GS5P2SMNC200319F@EKU.BITNET>, "Igor's Girlfriend give it to
Igor... leave Igor Alone" says:
>
>also there has been talk of naming Colin Powell as the
>Secretary of State. That would mean another first for the Clinton
>adminstration... a black in of the big 4 positions. It should be
>an interesting to see the further development

What happened to Vernon Jordan, I thought he was in for State or A-G?
>     ******************************************************************
>     ********                                                 *********
>     ********           John Stith (Freud)                    *********
>     ********   Bitnet:         STUSTITH@EKU                  *********
>     ********   Internet:       Coming Soon (hopefully)       *********
>     ********                   STUSTITH@eku.acs.eku.edu      *********
> ***************************************************************************
> ***************************************************************************
> ***    "Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose"           ***
> ***                                             Janis Joplin            ***
> ***                                                                     ***
> ***    "The opposite of Progress is Congress"                           ***
> ***                                         Any American                ***
> ***                                                                     ***
> ***    "I'd Rather Be Right Than President"                             ***
> ***                                            Henry Clay               ***
> ***************************************************************************
> ***************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:17:45 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories
              16 Dec 1992 12:32:23 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

> We all have heard that, "a penny saved is a penny earned."  Well,
> actually a penny saved is 1+a penny earned; and that "a" depends on the
> individual's tax bracket.

> Nope.  "a" depends on the effective interest rate, which may be
> affected by the tax bracket.

Can you give an example?...  Say the "effective interest rate" is
zero, are you saying that "a" is zero too?  If not what would
it be?  (I hope you are not gonna say, "I will not answer, because
if I answer KAT might say that now that the interest rate is zero
let's refinance the national debt or....... :-)

>> The more income, the higher the bracket,
>> and the larger "a" would be.  So, according to Andy, it seems that
>> the rich are actually receiving MORE benefit from the progressivity
>> of the tax system.  Would Andy argue that, "THAT is another argument
>> against progressive marginal rates?"

> Considering that he did, he probably would.  Why does KAT ask if I
> agree with something I've said?

Well, maybe it is "an" argument against progressive rates (I think
that it would be a strange one though) but it certainly is not one
based on the notion that SOMEHOW progressive rates are unfavorable
to poor people.

> -andy

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