HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: NAFTA: statement from UFCW president
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:07:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.081527.11680@r-node.gts.org> ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
>   The average wage in the United States is $9.12 for food processing
>employees.  In Mexico, the wage for comparable workers is less than a
>dollar -- $.62 an hour.  The sweat-shop wages combined with the tax
>enforcement of Mexican environmental standards will inexorably suck
>our domestic food industry south of the border.  The lack of

Um, two points for the union here - Why not start chapters in the "sweat shop"
environment in Mexico?  Also, if the wage differential is so great NOW, then
why haven't the food processing moved south of the border ALREADY?  Not because
of US tariffs, certainly, since Mexico has MFN trade status.

>   Our purpose is not so-called "protectionism" but progress which
>will set standards to promote human well-being for all citizens of
>our neighborhood in this hemisphere and throughout the world.

	Don't put the label on, but it is just that.

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | For a mere $50 these personal  | I will be gone: |
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | opinions can also be yours!    | 20 Dec - 4 Jan  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Manufacturing Consent: A Film about Chomsky. Now on video from NFB
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 15:55:58 GMT

In article <Az27s*m07@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca> hugh@kink.PhaedraV.On.Ca (Hugh D. Gamble) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.170820.3590@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, Michael Hui writes:
>> The film is available on video from the National Film Board of Canada.
>> For Ontario's PST rate, the total comes out to $40.20 Cdn.
>But that's not very social. And you have to invite 20 friends over (or
>watch it 20 times) to get the $2/viewing that going out to see it can cost.

I can hardly call watching that film a social activity.
I watch and read political science and sociology at home, alone.
I launch propaganda and alternative spins outside of home.
After all, you gotta play the game the way the masses are already
accustomed to it being played. Truth in advertising is an oxymoron.
(for a reference to the last assertion, read this year's Massey Lecture)
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
From: sgardine@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Query: French/English Dictionary Software
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:15:36 GMT
Organization: Auburn University, AL


I am in the market for french/english dictionary software.
	
	What good products exist?

	Where can they be obtained?

	Any comments about FRENCH ASSISTANT by MICROTAC?

Thanks

  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:40:32 GMT

---
Followups to talk.abortion.

todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
|g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
|>2.  There is more involved in the abortion question than right to life, there
|>	is also the question of the rights of the pregnant woman.
|                                    ~~~~~~
|"rights" should read "convenience". [...]

And we all know that CONVEEEEEEEEEENIENCE is *bad*, don't we?
*ReSPONsible* people don't ever consider their own convenience.

Those modern conveniences like washers & dryers & dishwashers &
can openers?  Responsible people don't use 'em.  Convenience
foods?   Responsible people don't eat 'em.  Convenience stores?
Responsible people don't patronize 'em.

Remember, people, the inconvenient choice is the only moral
choice. 

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com	C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"One may be continually abusive without saying anything just; but one 
cannot be always laughing at a man without now and then stumbling on 
something witty."  --Jane Austen
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:55:28 GMT

> = (TJ Doran) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:

[...]
>>>Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>>>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>>>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?

>>No.  Not unless you could whisk that pesky fetus from real womb to
>>artificial womb until birth.  You're ignoring the nine months that can
>>change a woman's life.  I.e., screw up career, screw up health, screw up
>>plans...

>Career?!? Plans?!? (Health I can understand...). 

Believe it or not, many women have careers that are quite important to them,
careers they don't want to give up.

>As a person who almost never
>made it to the post-natal part, I'm glad my mother decided to put off her
>career, plans, etc. in favour of my *life*.
>
>So is she.

That's great for you, TJ, and for your mother.

Other women think differently.  I think their personal viewpoints should be
respected, since it is their body.  What do you think?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: stevec@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Moving to Canada
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:42:51 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: jaeger.geog.ubc.ca

In article <1992Dec20.121156.1@vxdesy.desy.de> godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>In article <BzJHnG.14o@mach1.wlu.ca>, sweaver3@mach1.wlu.ca (scott weaver 9209 U) writes:
>> Then why bother reading this newsgroups contributed to mainly by Canadian
>> PEOPLE, whom you find so boring?
>> And please don't bother to directly reply to this question, your response
>> just might be too exciting for me to handle...
>
>Why ask the question if you don't want me to reply to it?
>
>Anyway the answer is that it amuses me to irritate Canadians.
>
>Laurence
>

So you admit that your posting to soc.culture.canada is a willful act
of interferance and vanadalism?

As I suspected. I would appreciate it if you would stop this
violation of netiquette and of the groups's charter.




--
Steve Cumming		 boreal mixedwood dynamics and rogue
stevec@geog.ubc.ca				    ... how long you got left?
						    well how long do you reckon?
							
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Speciesism
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<07DEC92.11618161.0059@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
	<TODD.92Dec14121806@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec14.044906.6934@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:53:13 GMT


In article <1992Dec14.044906.6934@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>Sorry, I fail to see your point. Where is the contradiction?

Vegetarian: Duh, gee, I think animals are important and have some rights
            so I won't kill them or support their breeding and slaughtering
            for the CONVENIENCE of my appetite, OK?  But, gee, I'm 
            pro-choice too, and humans are animals aren't they?  
            And isn't abortion a form of killing (see facts below)
            animals for the CONVENIENCE of the mother?
            So, like isn't that like a contradiction maybe?  But I 
            suppose I can smooth it out in my mind because it IS
            really CONVENIENT for the woman, and thats what the 
            feminists tell us what is right anyhow, so I better not 
            think too much lest I might figure something out for myself...

Fact1:  In Japan, abortions are legal until the end of the sixth 
        month of pregnancy.  In Canada, last I heard, there is no law, 
        just *guidelines* (someone update this if it's wrong, please).

Fact2:  Babies with as little as four months of gestation can survive.


 ***Hey! How about post-natal abortions for anti-abortionists!?!***


Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9370 can.politics:10741
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:58:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz9oxG.FB5.1
	<Bz416x.Ax3@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> <12DEC92.14087944.0063@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>
	<Bz97n1.DC8@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <Bz97n1.DC8@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   >(iii) the French culture cannot use the excuse that there culture is
   >    in danger, because they have sufficient population to maintain it
   >    already.

   Why are francophones out of Quebec so afraid of Quebec secession?
   They know they will disappear as a strong cultural group.  Until
   1976, the % of francos in Quebec was reducing by 1.5% each 10 years.
   Since the majority of anglophones and allophones are in Montreal,
   this was leading to the main town being in one language and all the
   other parts of country in another.  

However, the anglophone population of the Montreal area has been
decreasing, IN REAL TERMS, since the 1950s.  (It has been decreasing
in %age since the 1850s.)

You will have to make a statement concerning the languages spoken by
allophones to substantiate your claim.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Black Label
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:15:21 GMT
Organization: Not Philips.

In refd article, brg6080@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Rasputin) writes:
>ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
>>If you're _really_ looking for an excuse to boycott
>>them, you might want to consider that much of Molson's early wealth was
>>created by his steamship line which made high profits transporting under
>>contract, Scots forcibly evicted during the Highland clearances, up the St.
>>Lawrence to Glen Gary county in Eastern Ontario.
>
>What happened during the Highland clearances, and when did
>they occur?  I'm currently reading _David Balfour_, by
>Robert Louis Stevenson (the sequel to _Kidnapped_), which
>deals with (a? the?) Scottish Highland rebellion.

Briefly, the Highland Clearances occurred from about 1770 to about 1803,
and were the forced removal of the tenant crofting population of the
Scottish highlands by the mainly absentee landlords when they realized that
more profit could be made from sheep than crofters.  Most of the
dispossessed emmigrated to the Americas.

Kidnapped is set, as I remember it, around the '45, the Jacobite uprising
of Bonnie Price Charlie in 1745 which ended in the routing of the Battle of
Culloden in 1746.  There had been a previous up-rising in 1715.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  ray@cam.org           |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 04:17:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.164006.27083@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>None of them ever died in childbirth.

Is dying in childbirth the only health risk you recognize?  That post
you responded to listed many other health risks - some short-term, some
that will afflict the mother for the rest of her life.  And many are
unforeseeable (as has also been clearly pointed out) - any pregnancy can
turn into a life-threatening situation.  Yes, the odds are fairly low,
but the possibility is always there.  Do you really feel qualified to
insist someone else face this risk?

There have been very real health consequences attached to the birth of
our two daughters.  We are not willing to face further such
consequences.  Are we merely being selfish, or putting our own
convenience first (to use Todd's own terms)?  Who is to decide which
health risks are acceptable to the pregnant woman, and which aren't, if
not the woman herself?  (You do accept abortion for health reasons,
don't you?  Then you have accepted the principle of abortion - that the
mother is more important than the foetus.)

By the way, I believe having another child would be a life-threatening
situation - you might not agree, or feel the threat to life is high
enough.  Should your decision, as in uninvolved bystander, have more
weight than that of the woman facing this threat?

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:9519 can.politics:10932 talk.abortion:52423 talk.politics.animals:10424
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:59:29 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa

In article <BzHG6H.Axr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (TJ Doran) writes:
>>>
>>>Career?!? Plans?!? (Health I can understand...). As a person who almost never
>>>made it to the post-natal part, I'm glad my mother decided to put off her
>>>career, plans, etc. in favour of my *life*.
>>>
>>>So is she.
>>>
>
>My mother couldn't bring herself to take the life of another person, despite
>the blastular appearance.

Please clarify for me - are you grateful for your mother because she
chose to have you?  Or did she have no choice in the matter - in that
case, what cause for gratitude?

Of course, if she'd had a headache that day, you wouldn't be here.
Would your rights have been infringed?

Face it, your being here is good luck on your part.  And in great part,
good luck that your mother wanted to have you.  To assume that this good
luck was your right, though, is to push things a little far.

You seem not to realize how difficult a pregnancy can be (it goes far
beyond "the blastular appearance", whatever that means!)  It is a lot to
expect of even a willing woman . . .

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Abortion, Caves, Galen (WAS Vegetarianism and abortion)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:57:32 GMT

todd@athena.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law) writes:

>Yet at the same time, I'd like someone to write in and say what
>health effects happen to the fetus during abortion.

	It dies.  How it does, what it might feel, what rights it has,
and who should be looking after it are the questions under contention,
not the health effects of being aborted.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.214142.12766@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>-- 
>John P. LaRocque
>skywalker@uwo.ca
>University of Western Ontario
>London, Ontario


-- 
John P. LaRocque
skywalker@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: todd@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<1992Dec15.231223.4344@wdl.loral.com>
	<TODD.92Dec16165321@ai05.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec16.163347.16101@hemlock.cray.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:57:53 GMT


In article <1992Dec16.163347.16101@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:

>>[serious part]
>>Of course, pregnant women have rights, I really respect that, but
>>so do the unborn.  
>
>Not legally, (at least in this country) and for good 
>reason.  If the unborn are given rights, it would be 
>at the expense of taking away rights from adult women.  
>Do you really think it's fair for pregnant women to have
>fewer rights than all other born humans? 

This is like saying my right to drive all over the road
shouldn't be taken away just because I might wipe out a
few bystanders.   Crazy drivers deserve more rights.

>BTW, the phrase 
>'really respect..', when applied to women, and _especially_ 
>when followed by the word 'but', is on my official Mother's 
>List of Key Phrases for Determining Which Men to Avoid.

Too bad your mother didn't abort you.

>>Real justice would reflect a balance of both 
>>individuals' rights. Abortion is about as one-sided as it gets.
>
>In what sense can a fetus be called an 'individual'?
>Can this 'individuality' be ascertained without doing
>something invasive to the body of a pregnant woman?

Therefore the fetus should be put to death.  Get in my way? --> Die.
Good sense of justice there.

>>Adoption would be a pretty good balance, don't you think?
>>
>Adoption is fine if that's the option the woman chooses.
>However, carrying a pregnancy to term may damage her health 
>and interfere with her education or her employment, thus
>reducing her earning potential.  Would you like to have 
>that sort of thing forced on you?  If you 'really respect' 
>the rights of a woman to have some say about how her body is 
>used, and you think a woman should have the same right to 
>protect her health and lifestyle that all other adults enjoy,
>you will have to accept the unfortunate consequence that
>'fetal rights' are not compatible with these values.

Of course woman has rights over her own body to some extent.
She has a right to not have sex.  She has a right to use any
of various contraceptives.  You attribute absolutely zero
rights to the fetus.  What about it's rights?  Your selfishness
shines stupendously.

Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals
From: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
	<TODD.92Dec15140859@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Dec15.231223.4344@wdl.loral.com>
	<TODD.92Dec16165321@ai05.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:05:39 GMT


I was laying in bed last night thinking about what I wrote in
this post, and wanted to explain a little why I am doing this
in soc.culture.canada.  

According to Marvin Minsky, a pioneering AI researcher, "a culture
is a set of ideas that fit together well".  This may seem simplistic,
but it is a useful and realistic definition.

I really believe that in Canada, our ideas are beginning not to fit 
together well at all. I don't think I'm going to change many people's 
ideas about abortion, really, but I'm arguing to show a fundamental 
incompatibility in our society.  (If I really wanted to argue about
abortion, there are over 1200 postings in the talk.abortion group...)
You might say the failed constitutional bid is an example of our ideas 
no longer "fitting together", just like golfers' ideas don't really fit 
with Japan very well, or MacDonald's doesn't go down too well in India.

Maybe a sociologist out there somewhere could help me, but I believe
that major incompatibilities lead to major changes in society.  Birth
rates in Canada are among the lowest in the world, and we balance this
with immigration (not necessarily a bad idea).  But the face of the
nation is changing rapidly, and there is a revolution of sorts going
on.  Are we building a Yugoslavia? Utopia?  The trend of assimilation
works against the trend of diversification, but which is stronger?  I
admit some minor fear of (my) mainstream white Canadian culture being
Indianized, but am willing to try to share the country with many
different kinds of people.  Is it possible?  Can we achieve a set of
values that work well together?  These are the big questions.  We can
only hope and do our dammnedest to see that the grand experiment does
not fail.

(Do not misinterpret this as suggesting that I oppose abortion in order
to save the white race, or any such thing - I oppose abortion because it
is murder - and use it as an example of how the value system being forced
on society is fundamentally incompatible with itself)


Todd Law

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Itoh Laboratory,			"Be excellent to each other."
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada