HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: poser@vxcrna.cern.ch (Till Poser   ZEUS Offline)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: U.S. Role in the world (was Re: Canada and the U.S.)
Summary: Come off the moral high horse!
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:40:39 GMT
Reply-To: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA

In article <1992Apr15.151218.4791@midway.uchicago.edu>,
mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes in soc.culutre.usa: 
> In article <1992Apr15.125422.7029@cl.cam.ac.uk> iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk
> (Innes Ferguson) writes:
> 
>>I'm not denying the US
>>played a major role in thwarting Hitler (although you guys didn't get
>>involved until fairly late) but that doesn't justify all your covert
>>post-WWII crap.
> 
> All right.  So we've established that it is appropriate in some cases
> to intervene militarily and economically in the internal and external
> affairs of a sovereign power-- that, indeed, it can be inappropriate
> _not_ to do so (at least that's how I interpret your criticism of the
> late US entry).  Please give criteria for appropriate and
> inappropriate interventions.

Very good question. But how about realizing that the USA had to be
dragged kicking and screaming into WW2:

07.12.41  Initiation of hostilities by the Japanes navy at Pearl Harbor

10.12.41  Formal declaration of war on the USA by the Reich and
          subsequent near immediate initiation of submarine warfare
          activity on US shipping in US coastal waters (some within the
          12 mile zone)

Seems to me that both Japan and the Reich found it appropriate to
intervene in US affairs, no?

By the way, it took Pearl Harbor to get the US into this war at all,
since Rooseveldt could have well been impeached, had he tried to declare
war on the Reich as a political or moral necessity, remember? Most
probably the Japanese wouldn't have had any problems swallowing the
British and Dutch possessions in Far East Asia, had they left US
colonies to their own devices.

Note that this is no complaint about the US finally getting involved in
this war. What gets up my nose is the highly hypocritical mantle of
moral nobility USAmericans are wont to take up when mentioning their one
successful war in this century (And please, to not try to palm off WW1,
the Spanish-American War and Korea on me).

Quite a few of the other involvements, specifically post-WW2 make me
want to hold my nose, so rottern were they.

  Till Poser (F35/ZEUS OFFLINE)   Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004
         ZEUS Freiburg            BITNET:  POSER@DESYVAX.BITNET
          bldg.1b-235                     F35POS@DHHDESY3.BITNET
Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron  INTERNET: poser@vxdesy.desy.de ????
          Notkestr.85             PSIMAIL: PSI%026245050354082::POSER
       D- 2000 Hamburg 52         HEPNET: VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for prez?
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:39:27 GMT

In article <117480001@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson) writes:
>he seems to be "a business man with heart". (if that is not an oxymoron ;))
>his positions seem to be reasonably socially responsible but I can't help 
>but wonder if someone like him is really capable of understanding the 
>concerns of regular working people and the poor. Lots of these mega-
>capitalists talk a good game but when it comes right down to the wire, they
>always protect their own. 

	Keep in mind that none of the Candidates are regular working people,
all are upper class wealthy, although some (Perot and Clinton, to name two)
came from less advantage backgrounds. Most presidential candidates are
Millionaires.

>
>there was some sort of controversy as to what he *really* had to say to 
>Oliver North during the whole Iran-contra flapdoodle. He claims that he
>told North to "just be honest" with the Congress but a tape exists whihc
>indicates something rather contradictory. 

	He claims to have a tape that backs up his statement. The 
contradiction comes from Olliver Norths' book. I hear he's played
the tape at press conferences, but I don't know the details.
>
>


Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:2994 alt.politics.elections:988 talk.politics.misc:18416
From: irvine@en.ecn.purdue.edu (B-rent)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:27:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr14.154918.6610@noao.edu>, muller@noao.edu (Beatrice Muller) writes:
> In article <1992Apr14.145443.636@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> >
> >After all, we're more open than either Japan or Western Europe WRT to immigrants.  Presently the U.S. population is over 1/3 non-white (African, Asian and
> >Hispanic) and unlike Japan, who don't permit other Asian immigrants to vote,
> >most of our immigrants do eventually choose to become citizens
> 
> Well, no immigrants in the states have the right to vote unless they become
> CITIZENS. Are your sure that immigrants in Japan are not allowed to become
> citizens?

It is exceedingly difficult to become a Japanese citizen.  Tune into
soc.culture.japan and mention it.  You will be overwhealmed.

From what I remember you have to, in addition to a very long and
detailed screening process, you then give up your last name and adopt
a Japanese name from a list of approved names.  (no kidding!)


-- 
Brent Irvine						irvine@ecn.purdue.edu 
 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,rec.arts.comics.strips
From: srheault@alfred.carleton.ca (Steven Rheault Kihara)
Subject: Re: Comic Strips -- American Cultural Imperialism over Canada
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:16:17 GMT

In <1992Apr14.211348.16938@bmerh2.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
Canada has already successfully
>>>applied Canadian content regulations to music, so why not
>>>apply it to comic strips?
>>
>>  Because it's a bad idea, that's why.

>Why?

>What has been the effect of CanCon on music?  Are Canadians deprived
>of exposure to music from the U.S. or other countries?  Are we deluged
>with inferior Canadian music, since there isn't enough Canadian talent
>around?  Has the result been the growth of a mediocre Canadian musical
>industry?

Yes, it most emphatically has. Good god, I had to grow up listening to
Trooper and Prism and then Gowan and Glass Tiger and Platinum
Blonde... geez, the list just goes on. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:01:07 GMT

mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:


>Reading the net, I've gotten the distinct impression that many
>Canadians are dissatisfied with US citizens and the way they perceive
>and treat Canada and Canadians.  So I'm curious: given Canada and the
>US as they are, what should be changed?  What are the primary
>grievances against those south of the border, and how would you
>suggest they be addressed?

>Mike

  well, i once heard a definition of 'mer'cans and canucks:

    'mer'cans think they're the best in the world and canadians think
they're better than 'mer'cans.  

  i have the impression that 'mer'cans are really arrogant.  undeservedly
in my opinion.  unfortunately, they don't have the monopoly on it.  everybody's
got some.  maybe we could all do with a little less.



---
  Stephen Buckley        /   my opinions are not in the public domain.  they are
  sbuckley@sfu.ca       /  shareware.  if you agree with them, you are required 
TrueNorthStrong&Free   /   to send me $15 and a postcard of your hometown.  
   1-800-REALITY      /      further upgrades available to registered users.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:2845 soc.culture.canada:3254
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 00:31:23 EDT
From: <FAFARDP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada's enivronmental record (was Re: Canada and the U.S.)
Distribution: na
 <1992Apr8.174255.26686@beaver.cs.washington.edu>

In article <1992Apr8.174255.26686@beaver.cs.washington.edu>,
greg@cs.washington.edu (Greg Barnes) says:
>
>I used to think Canada had an excellent environmental record, too.  But it
>took only a few years living in relatively close proximity to realize that
>things aren't that great on the other side of border.
>
>Consider the clear-cutting of Vancouver Island and the discharge of toxics
>into the Columbia and of sewage into the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  Turning
>to the east, what about the proposed huge hydro projects (James Bay, for
>example)?
>
>True, things aren't greatly better in the best places here, and
>positively abysmal in certain places (the Gulf Coast, L.A.), but I question
>whether Canada has an environmental outlook that is essentially more
>enlightened than the U.S., or that it's just that they don't have as many
>people to muck the place up as we do.
>
I recently read a rather detailed comparison of environmental policy
and policy outcomes in Canada and the United States.  The general conclusion
was that neither country comes out clearly ahead of the other.  For example
the U.S. has traditionally been ahead of Canada with respect to auto emission
standards [although the gap has recently been eliminated] ... yet Canada has
traditionally had a much better record on limiting acid gas emissions.  With
respect to water pollution, the regulatory regime in the U.S. in stronger
although Canada is gaining, esp. in the area of municipal water treatment.

The key question is why?  Two main factors are of interest.  First, the fact
that Canada is less densly populated and has less manufacturing has meant that
the amount of pollution has been less and therefore the need for government
action has been less.  If Canada spent, on a per capita basis, as much as the
United States now does, we would have a relatively much clearner environment.
Second, much of the pollution in Canada is produced south of the border.  The
biggest examples of this are of course, acid rain on Canadian lakes and rivers
cause by the burning of coal in the midwest ... and pollution of the Great
Lakes, esp. Lakes Ontario and Lake Erie where most of the industrial pollutants
come from the U.S.

The bottom line is that can learn from each other and neither Canadians or
Americans can adopt an attitude of superiority when it comes to environmental
matters.  As for the future, I suspect that Canadians will do better since
our problem is not nearly as big as yours......
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Oscar revulsion/Greg
From: f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 11 Apr 92 10:08:06 MST
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67709317

In article <1992Apr10.235941.19257@u.washington.edu>, cbrand@cac.washington.edu (Carol Brand) writes:
> [responding to Kathi's rantings]
> your posts.  I really am interested in your ideas and why you hold certain
> opinions.  Please post these instead of the angry rantings.  Angry ranting
> just take up space and waste my reading time. 

Actually, I'd like to hear her in this group again too.  I responded to the
original message so vehemently because it struck a chord with me.  My mother
has never been much of a movie watcher, and she always made a face whenever
I suggested seeing something like Star Wars or Halloween.  She basically
said that in her first jobs (nursing, prison case working) she saw the dregs of
human society and suffering every day, so she passed on the chance to see the
"realistic" films like "The Pawnbroker" or "In Cold Blood" that were in vogue at
the time.  She preferred frilly Rodgers+Hammerstein musicals, or similar
type.

Adding in to the idea that films can never truly be "realistic" (it all
depends on the filmmaker's perspective)--not even documentaries can be
truly realistic, and I was pretty much conditioned not to expect realism
out of Hollywood.  I apologize to Kathi if I called her an idiot; what I
meant was that her perspective on SL and "believability" was, IMHO, idiotic.
Smart people can hold idiotic ideas; I've got a few myself. :-)
-- 
Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.japan
From: robart@agora.uucp (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Organization: Organization
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 07:36:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.135608.23539@kub.nl> dleblanc@kub.nl (David Leblanc) writes:
>
>I just can't figure out this idea everyone has that if Japan would
>just open its borders to imports all the trade problems would be
>solved. I mean, come on, how in the world do you expect Japan to
>consume as many US products as the US does Japanese - the country is a
>fraction of the size of the US. 


  That fraction being about 40-50%, hardly insignificant.

-- 

If you do not file a return...we may also have to disallow the exemptions,
exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on your tax return.
                                                                 - The IRS
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:54:43 GMT

In article <anne.703194796@menaik> anne@cs.UAlberta.CA (Anne J.R. Nield) writes:
>If the US consistently defended "freedom" and "democracy" one could
>be a little more sympathetic to the Not-so New-World-Order.
>Unfortunately, they have a nasty habit of supporting whoever and
>whatever appears to be of use to them at the moment -- with 
>a convenient disregard for the fact that many of these people/
>governments qualify as repressive, dictatorial, fascist, and a
>number of other not so worthy descriptions.  

Although we do support some government's which we really don't approve
of, in many instances the other extreme might be even worse.  Exactly
who are you comparing the U.S. to--the former Soviet Union, PRC, the
British Empire?

>And watching the tirades of anti-Japan bashing shown on shows
>like "60 Minutes" is NOT encouraging; not the sort of behavior one
>relishes in "friends".

Although I don't agree with Japanese bashing, we have allowed Japan to
trade freely in the U.S. for the last 40 years with no reciprocity.  Now
that our deficits are running in the 100's of billions per year (for the
last 10 years, we need to get some trade concessions with other countries.

After all, we're more open than either Japan or Western Europe WRT to immigrants.  Presently the U.S. population is over 1/3 non-white (African, Asian and
Hispanic) and unlike Japan, who don't permit other Asian immigrants to vote,
most of our immigrants do eventually choose to become citizens

Western Europe as well doesn't allow their former workers to become citizens
unless they're European by birth.

Charlie


Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.rumors
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Re: Info on UPenn, Philadelphia?
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 06:14:59 GMT

bp009@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (D. Lee) writes:


>Hi! I may have a chance to do some research at UPenn. However, I have been
>hearing that Philadelphia is a bit of a rough city. Things like --- one of
>the worst neighborhoods in North America, frequent crimes like assaults,
>robberies, and more violent crimes.

>I would appreciate if someone (living at Philadelphia, maybe?) could tell
>me how good or bad the truth is.

>Many thanks in advance!

twenty two years ago it wasn't bad :-) but I was only twelve.
According to a customer just fresh from the City of Brotherly Love,
pack your piece, wear your kelvar bvd's, be inconspiquous (sp?).

personally, I don't trust any place that drops boms from Police Heliocopters.

chus
pyotr

"Poor?  I'm so broke I'm po' - I can't afford the last two letters.
No man is an Island - he's a penisula.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:2939 soc.culture.canada:3391
From: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:44:01 GMT
Reply-To: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch
Organization: Ascom Hasler AG
Originator: kevinh@nath


In article <1992Apr13.123732.15968@kub.nl>, dleblanc@kub.nl (David Leblanc) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr13.085607.10836@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
|> 
|> #The US is the richest, oldest, most militarily powerful
|> #democracy on the planet.  
|> 
|> The US may be the richest and most powerful democracy on the planet,
|> but it certainly isn't the oldest.
|> 
|> A petty, nitpicky point, but I'm in a petty, nitpicking kinda mood.

And on a per person basis neither is the US *the* richest, depends on
how you look at it! 

A further point is that the US has quite a low rating (19th) on the United Nations Human Developement Index, Canada is 5th.

kevinh@hasler.ascom.ch
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: kji+@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU (Kathi Iannamico)
Subject: Oscar Revulsion/Chris
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 15:34:06 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Originator: kji@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU

If you were uncomfortable with the so-called "big words", which I
presumed were a part of everyday speech, then maybe you'll understand
this:

...yawn...

If what you wrote were any less important to me, you wouldn't even be
getting that much.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:2927 soc.culture.canada:3373
From: anne@cs.UAlberta.CA (Anne J.R. Nield)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Canada and the U.S.
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:53:16 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

If the US consistently defended "freedom" and "democracy" one could
be a little more sympathetic to the Not-so New-World-Order.
Unfortunately, they have a nasty habit of supporting whoever and
whatever appears to be of use to them at the moment -- with 
a convenient disregard for the fact that many of these people/
governments qualify as repressive, dictatorial, fascist, and a
number of other not so worthy descriptions.  

What I find disturbing is the assumption that to be American is
to be right (no pun intended...) and that slogans about democracy
and freedom can be substituted for serious soul-searching and a
good dose of humility about whether in fact they DO have all the
answers for all the people everywhere on earth -- or even for
themselves given the state of the United States at the moment.

And watching the tirades of anti-Japan bashing shown on shows
like "60 Minutes" is NOT encouraging; not the sort of behavior one
relishes in "friends".

I just tuned in to all this, so apologies if I have missed the
crucial part of the thread -- just wanted to respond to the "US
as Savior of the World" suggestions.

Anne
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:2977 soc.culture.canada:3438
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 92 11:02:06 CST
From:         wampus <C05705DA@WUVMD>
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:         U.S. government crap
Newsgroups:   soc.culture.usa

I'm pissed at the government so I'm going to let out some steam.  The idea
of the US proctecting the world is B.S.!  The governments resposibility is
to the citizens first, the rest of the world is secondary.  The government
is of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE of THIS country!  WHOOPS,
something went wrong somewhere sometime.  Why are we spending millions
on other nations when our own people are starving to death.  I'm not
hard core welfare, but industry must come back.  Why does Busch say buy
American and support the U.S. and then give bussinesses tax brakes to move
out?  The problem is not just Busch, it's the whole gaovernment, including
lobiest, and the attitude of the people.  To begin with, Reagan and Busch
have the people believing that they are the American government and what
they do is for the good for the country and if anyone disagrees, they are
not truely being an American.  BULLSHIT!  What is American is for the
PEOPLE to call to arms and revolt against the government - stand up for
what the people believe is right, not the government's.  Throughout US
history, there has been nine or twelve rebellions excluding the civil war.
Thomas Jefferson even stated that rebellion keeps the government healthy.
The most famous being the Whiskey Rebellion.  The idea that the American
way is to maintain what the government has been doing is not the American way.
When the US government was formed, it was all new and liberal, not
conservative; though I am not a Democratic either.  When something came up,
a NEW method was used to remity it, not to just call it the "L word" and
denounce them of being patriotic.  In today's government, decisions are
made by what the "party" and lobbies, which fund thier elections, say, not
what would be in the best interest of the people.  For example, why does
the government spend millions on the no smoking campaign and turn around
and pay the tobacco industry the difference in subsidies - lobbies.  I'm
glad to see my money being put into private interprises and fight itself at
the same time.  Basicly what the country needs is to elect all new statesmen
who have no political ties and have enough BALLS to stand up for the PEOPLE
and not just for themselves!
From: goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard)
Subject: Re: War and National Interests (was Re: U.S. Role in the world)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 17:33:02 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Apr15180905@crane.cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>Why did we go to war in the Gulf?  Idealistic -- to liberate Kuwait,
>to establish a new world order.  Pragmatic -- to protect our oil
>supply, to prevent Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Yes, but the pragmatic came first and the "idealistic" followed.
There's a difference between the rationale for the pattern of foreign
policy decisions and the PR campaigns to get the public to accept those
decisions.  Bush had decided on war or Iraq's withdrawl way before he
found the effective PR message of saving the innocent Kuwait from the
evil nuclear monster.  What is idealistic about the NWO, by the way?

>For those who argue that American foreign policy decisions are made on
>a purely pragmatic basis, explain why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia
>during the arab oil embargo?

What for?  We've had a very close relationship with the Saudi royal
family since 1947.  It wasn't threatened.  They weren't trying to
assert their independence.  They wanted more money for their oil, which
they were quite happy to reinvest in the West.  No problem.

Nigel
-- 
Nigel Goddard
goddard@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu