HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:38:06 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: How to defeat AIDS
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              21 Jul 1992 12:57:17 EST from <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT. EDU>

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:57:17 EST Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg said:

>I think if a list of "sins" evolves from this it will be one that
>will A) suck the fun out of life by making everyone a paranoid manic
>depressant (*Ooh! Scary!*) or B) turn everyone into holy rolling,
>faithful Roman Catholics.

/c this in mind, turn to _Panati's Extraordinary Endings of Practically
Everything and Everybody_ and read about the third (last) round of
Bubonic Plague...practically anyone who sneezed or coughed was
ostracized for fear they were passing along the gift of a lifetime.
The parties most likely to care for the infirmed (what passed for
medical staff, nuns, priests, et alia) nearly died out.

The people wailed and begged the Pope to determine the problem.  He finally
declared a pilgrimage for all of the faithful, sick and healthy, to Rome.
Fully 90% of the people who began the trek died.  Of course, those who
weren't sick when they set out quickly became sick somewhere along
the way.

One lesson we learned from the Black Death(s):  it was common to dump
our trash, sewage, and refuse in the streets.  Where that stuff was,
there were rats.  Where there were rats, there were fleas.  And where
there were fleas, there was plague.  Move the trash out of populated
areas and begin cluttering up the landfills and move the problems
/c you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R2).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:43:15 EST
From:         "Greg `TwoTone' Spiegelberg" <GSPIEGEL@BSA1.KENT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: More on olympics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.EDU

From:          Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

}Yeah, from the POST OFFICE. The U.S. Postal Service, you know,
}They Deliver For You.

Maybe not TO you, but FOR you yes.

}Proud Sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Team. Good publicity, they thought.

}Maybe they can buy an endorsement from Michael Jordan, for Air Mail.

}Jamie

-Greg, The Miffed
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:37:46 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How Iraq was armed

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
>
>>Only if your blinders prevent you from seeing any possible
>>foreign policy plan other than whatever you mean by "past US
>>foreign policy."
>>One interesting question is whether it would be a good idea
>>to re-install an Administration that armed Saddam Hussein,
>>whether such an outlook bodes well for the future. My own
>>feeling is that it does not.
>
>It isn't obvious that the US can have an effective foreign policy.
>We don't have useful goals.  We don't have agreement among the
>relevant parties.

Very little is obvious in U.S. foreign policy. For example, it
isn't obvious that the U.S. CANNOT have an effective foreign policy.

>It isn't a comment on Jamie at all.  It's a reference to a underlying
>theme found in many political discussions.  I couldn't find anywhere
>else to put it.

I tend to assume that pretty much everything posted is about me.
Wrong again.

>>>It's not secret in the sense that anyone with >half a brain is
>>>not surprised that we gave guns to Iraq.  That's what we do; it
>>>would be surprising if we hadn't armed Iraq.
>>
>>Well, the "half a brain" standard may be a bit too high.
>>For example, Travis wrote just recently:
>>>And of course we don't want nukes in the hands of the likes of Saddam.
>
>So?  We can arm a country without giving it nukes.  (We arm
>Egypt yet haven't given it nukes.)

But we do seem to have helped Saddam on his way to nukes. So perhaps
some More-than-50%-brain-abled readers may be enlightened.

>>Massacring Kurds is not a regional sport. Saddam Hussein massacres
>>enemies for a reason (perhaps Andy subscribes to the "madman"
>>theory of Saddam's activities, but I do not). The resistance by
>>Kurds and urged by the Bush Administration provided such a reason.
>
>It is the regional sport.  Every country (in that region) with kurds
>has done it.  Hussein did it both before and after we asked them to
>revolt.  (If I remember the timing right, he stopped massacring them
>and asked them for support right before we asked them to overthrow
>him.  If he made that move because he couldn't afford to fight them
>and US, then his survival, regardless of our request of them or any
>action on their part to help us, would have been a bad thing for them
>if his previous reasons for wanting them dead had still existed.)

Oppression, while awful, is not quite the same as massacre. Kurds
in Iraq were considerably worse off after Operation Desert Topping
than they were before. Especially the dead ones.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:19:06 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Some stats. . .

Just read "Time" and saw some interesting numbers.

"Is the country better off than it was four years ago?

Yes: 15%  No: 72%  The Same: 10%

Are you personally better off?

Yes: 39%  No: 33%  The Same: 27%"

The poll was conducted by Time/CNN of 1,424 American adults and has
a sampling error of +-2.6%.

From what I recall, this should look pretty bad for Bush.

-j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:12:50 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: the upcoming war
              29 Jul 1992 22:20:00 EST from <199561011@VUVAXCOM>

In reading some of the posts about the impressions people from other
countries have of the US, I am reminded of something Richard Pryor said
about when he was in Africa.  He said that an African told him it
must be wonderful to live in America, because "you can get food
anytime you like."  Richard said, "Sure you can.  If you have money.
Or a gun."  (not an exact quote, but you get the point.)

Seems to me the only people who don't believe that America is the land
of opportunity are (some of) those who live here.
                                                  --Missy Prez-to-Be
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:23:16 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: hilary or carl? tough choice!
              22 Jul 1992 16:19:35 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Regarding the Hillary Clinton child emancipation proposal:

I would like to know on what grounds anyone maintains that social
work professionals or psychiatrists or lawyers would make better
decisions than parents.  Given the abnormally high rate of dysfunction,
mental illness, and abusive behavior within the last 2 professions,
and the unarguable overburdening of the first, I doubt that such
a conclusion is valid.
                      --Missy Justice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:15:37 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: How to Defeat Aids
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:59:00 EDT Carl A. Lahetta said:
>  Aside from blood transfusions, I think that the way to defeat Aids
>is to encourage people to discontinue a promiscuous lifestyle and to
>make abstinence in vogue.  As for education, since sex ed has been
>introduced into the schools the rate of diseases and teen pregnancies
>have increased.  Also, there is no protection against Aids even from a
>condom.  The Aids virus is one fifth the size of the smallest hole in
>any condom.

Not to mention the failure rate of condoms.

But your proposal to defeat AIDS means essentially writing off anyone
who has already been exposed to or contracted the virus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
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:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:11:00 EDT
From:         "push the button, frank!" <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Economic Plan

What you describe of the Connecticut budget situation is eerily reminiscent
of what Michigan is facing.  Michigan has one of the highest tax bases in
the nation, and has been hard hit by the recession, and competition from
foreign automakers.  Our current governor, John Engler, has been hacking and
slashing at the budget, mostly in the areas of social programs, unfortunately.
He's done little to lighten the heavy tax burden on businesses, large or
small, however.

> One of the largest drains on the state budget is public assistance and
> unemployment.  We need to take some tough steps to reform these areas.  No
> longer can we allow long term living on welfare and unemployment.  These
> have to be programs with short terms.  However, that doesn't mean that after
> the term runs out that a recipient is totally cut-off if he or she has not
> found work.  Rather, I want to use the Education pool to allow these people
> the opportunity to finish high school, attend a state college, and/or learn
> a trade.

This is a particularly interesting idea, and one that should have more
positive results than the so-called 'workfare' plans that some other states
are trying and that Michigan is considering.  The free drug treatment angle
is a good, pragmatic addition.

In general, it seems to be a very sound plan for growth.  I'm not an economist,
however, so there may be problems with it that I am not perceiving.
Unfortunately, proposals like this aren't being given much chance to be
heard, in Michigan or on the national level...

> Brett

Gary W. Olson, tranquilized   "Turn the tables with our unity,    -L7,
  fugitive candidate           they're not a moral nor majority.  "Pretend
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   Wake up and smell the coffee,       We're
                               or just say no to individualty."    Dead"
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, 31 Jul 1992 10:40:32 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      you can call me ray, or you can call me jay,
              or you can call me....

good to see that plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.  wasn't this
argument raging when last i logged on?  some would call it "murder",
some would call it "late term abortion", some would call it "missing the
point entirely".  the big picture, kerry...we are talking about the
BIG PICTURE here...rights of the individual versus the rights of the
government...the abortion issue is an example of problems that occur when
the situation is not clarified.  *work* with me.  when we clear up how much
we are willing to allow the government to tell us what to do, issues like
abortion will become crystal clear, like that new pepsi stuff.  then it will
become more of a philosophical question.  speaking of philosophical questions,
where do *you* think aristotle got his ethics from?  (n.b., scorekeeper:  i gues
   s that it was out of a box of paideia pops)

                                            * * * anneliese, flogging that
                                                  same ol' hoss for a
                                                  recordbreaking second year
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      button your fly
Organization: FERMILAB
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:12:07 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92072718044435@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
>  I didn't catch the ID of the sender of the Levi Strauss message but
>  thanks anyway.  They were *extremely* pleased with my condemnation of
>  their stand against the Boy Scouts of America.
> 
>  ---Robert

That's cool, they were even happier with my commendation of their stand against
BSA.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
TEAM STAR Charter Member             | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:37:54 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Financing the gov't...

>BTW, as I recall, the much vaunted "luxury tax" only served to run
>the luxury item maker out of business, and put those of the working
>class who manufactured the items out of work.  If you want to tax

The "luxury tax" was a bad idea and something of a last minute compromise.
The result was that those buying the "luxury" items had to pay not only
the down-payment and state/local sales taxes, but an additional 10% up
front.  (It is unclear why the luxury tax couldn't be factored into the
loan.)  Instead of paying $15-20K up front for a $100K item, they now
had to pay $25-30K, which was seen as too prohibitive by most, so
sales dropped dramatically, plants closed, unemployment rose.  There
is talk on the hill of repealing the tax, although I think it could
be lowered to 1 or 2%, which would return purchases of these items
almost to pretax levels (increasing employment, etc.) as well as raise
some revenue.

This has nothing to do with Clinton's proposal to increase taxes for
the "rich".  The story goes that the rich got huge tax reductions
during Regan's administration, the idea being that the extra money
would be reinvested, improving the economy, reducing unemployment, etc.
What happened was the wealthy used the extra money to buy Italian
shoes, German cars, and Caribbean vacations.  What did trickle down
to the poor often tasted more like urine than milk.  Clinton's
proposal is to return, more or less, to the pre-Reagan tax levels
for the wealthiest Americans.  Perot had similar proposals.
    todddddddd
>                                                ---Missy Justice

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "I don't like to rely on
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   lawyers.  All they do is
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    take my money." - D. TRUMP
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:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:13:41 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: ratings for tv

Hi, j.b.:
>True, but I think that point still stands that the people who do the
>most to shape America's sex ethic are the people often the least
>responsible in their actions.  The TV and movie industry does have
>people who care, but they are far too few.  The majority want to
>make money and sex sells.  The reality of sex doesn't, but the fantasy
>does.

Just out of curiosity:  First, why do you single out the entertainment
industry as prime purveyors of sex?  Seems to me the advertising industry
would be as good (if not better) a target.

Second (and I think we've hashed this out before, at least a little bit),
if you're going to identify the entertainment industry as prime
participants in shaping "American's sex ethic", you might also want to
identify them as shapers of our "violence" ethic.  At least the latter
position can be justified with a bit of evidence.

Don't get me wrong -- I find *much* to dislike in the kinds of TV shows and
movies I've been watching all my life.  But I think the problem (issue?) of
the "American sex ethic" has less to do with General Hospital than with
other socioeconomic conditions.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:40:00 EDT
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Our beloved government and its duties Abroad

Jason,

        Just for you own edification, the approach to foreign policy which you
have recently discussed is termed the "Realist" school of diplomatic history.
The realists argue, essentially, that a nation must define its interests
clearly and that these interests must be tangible.  It must then protect these
interests.  They would consider, for example, the integrity of Germany to be a
tangible interest.  Conversely, they would consider "making the world safe for
democracy" as intangible.

        A corrallary to the tangible/intangible thing is the idea of
realistically achievable goals.  Global containment is beyond the realistic
capacity of any single nation (and hence, Realists are not big fans of the
Global Cold War).

        Please understand that I am neither endorsing nor condeming this school
of thought.  If you would like to read further, however, I can recommend Hans
Morganthau's _In Defense of the National Interest_ and Norman Graebner's
_America as a World Power:  A Realist Appraisal from Wilson to Reagan_.
Greabner has another book which discusses 19th century American Diplomacy, but
I forget the title.

        That was the history lesson for 31 July 1992.  Expect a quiz on Monday.

-------------
Mike McCarthy
Marshall Univ. History Dept.
Huntington, WV 25755, USA
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:48:42 EST
From:         MacPhil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject: RE: real men don't suffer consequences
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:22:00 EDT Travis Kidd said:

>Careful--he may sue to divorce you.


But let's not confuse that /c the case in the courts:  that case was to
remove any inherent biological responsibility on the part of his blood
parents in order to be adopted legally by his foster parents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ambidextrous people can't do it right, we do it left.

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:38:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Obfuscation Elimination

Well, Jamie, I think you'd be wasted in the relatively minor post of
Logic Czar (besides, do good democrats really want to take on royal
trappings?).  What I had in mind was the Cabinet-level post of
Philosopher General.  Or perhaps we could call it Secretary of Thought.
It's a virtually untapped field in Washington.  I'll call you, and we
can meet before the Convention.

Best,
Peter
(heading up in the polls, expecially among Poles)
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, 24 Jul 1992 13:29:52 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: The theme of men's magazines ...

Kai sez:
>I'm not sure what this is a response to, but the theme of all womens magazines
>tends to be:
>"How to find an available, wealthy man"  p. 8, 16-17, 56-68
>"How to string a man along without _actually_ giving sex"  p. 3, 22
>"How to trap a man into marrying you"  p. 34-38 (feature story), 72-75, 93-97

And I just want to congratulate him/her (which is it, Kai?) on the accurate
deconstruction of all those articles on baking, health, fitness, job
hunting, dealing with discrimination and sexual harrassment, etc.

Kerry
who thought the theme of all women's magazines was how to transform
ourselves into the American male's ideal of feminine perfection . . .
:)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: This place is infested!
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:03:02 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

jimmy donal (sorry I cut off your last name) writes: 
> This place seems to have gotten just plain *infested* with
> Christian critters since I left!  And, amazingly enough, they
> seem to think that their mystical superstitions amount to something
> like a rational position which we should actually treat as worthy of
> discussion!

I don't think that a mere statement of one's religious views can be properly
used as the basis for a political argument, but I think, occasionally, it can
be acceptable to explain (briefly, without flaming or getting drippy) the
logic and motive of some political figure's perspective on an issue even if it
has roots in their religion.  These religious/opposing religious people exist
politically, and we have to understand them to deal with them.  What we
shouldn't do is argue about our religious views.  But a _brief_ explanation to
explain seeming logical inconsistancies should be allowed, when it directly
impacts on a political issue, and it is necessary for people to understand it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote MODERATE in '92--vote CLINTON!!          |      Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:38:07 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Oh Danny Boy

Good thoughts Jimbo...

I could care less whether D.Q. is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'.  But, it is
obvious to all that he is 'wishy-washy' and DUMB.

                                                  ---roger
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      I have yet to meet a person wanting their tombstone engraved....
                 "I wish I had worked harder at my job!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU