HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: US Should NOT Disarm Somalis
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:51:09 -0500

There has been a lot of talk lately about forcibly disarming the people
of Somolia. Apparently, we are to believe that the Somalis are nothing
but a gaggle of bad children who are misbehaving - and must have their
toys taken away. It is exactly this tone of moral and cultural
superiority that has given the western nations such a bad reputation
over the past few decades. The Somalis are not children to be
spanked - they are genuine human beings and thier concerns must be
taken seriously. It is wrong to disarm Somali citizens for the same
reasons it is wrong to disarm citizens here in the USA. Indeed, given
the acute dangers in Somolia, giving up ones gun would be insane.
 
I will hazard a guess that there are more guns-per-person here in
the USA than in Somolia. Yet, the USA is not an anarchy. The
availible firepower is not the issue at all. 
 
What was lost in Somolia was that elusive and necessary sense of
focus - that mental image of common purpose, common identity and
cultural bond. These were shattered by drought, by the loss of
foreign capital and by power-hungry opportunists within the nation
itself. Somolia was too small to survive such a triple-whammy.
If they can regain this common ground, all the weapons in the
world will not do them harm. 
 
It is ludicrous to suggest disarming citizens when well-armed gangs
rove the landscape. These gangs will not suffer disarmament and
can easily hide beyond international borders. If we are to actually
help Somolia, we must restore a national army and police force. 
Obviously, this will require the cooperation of the top few 
'warlords'/factions. Their words suggest that they have realized
that their individual efforts towards total power will leave them
as king of a mountain of skulls and nothing else. The time to
take advantage of this psychology is NOW ... not in a few months.
 
Status-quo breeds status-quo. If Somalis can start living the
peaceful life again for a time, free from the fear of gangs,
this state of mind will become entrenched. A tad of good
propaganda to help reenforce this and Somolia may once again
be a decent place to live. Central to this sense of security
is the sense of individual empowerment that comes with personal
firearms PLUS the 'reserves' of a proper national army/police.
Take away the police, and an individual can be overwhelmed. Take
away the citizens own arms, and they fear subjugation by the
police. Peace is a cooperative between state and individual force
against the gangs and looters. State power alone will result in
dictatorship and citizen power alone leads to anarchy. Only
the proper balance of the two will succeed.
 
-- JM 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64386 alt.politics.elections:24613 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10192
From: cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gary Trudeau
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:13:17 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: General Electric Co., Syracuse, NY

In article <1992Dec11.092033.5569@fasttech.com>, zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
> In <bill.723844760@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
> 
>>>But they can't possibly compare to the many vicious, vitriolic attacks he has
>>>made
> 
>>Give me one example where Trudeau went too far.
> 
> I unfortunately don't have the worst cartoon in front of me, so I'll recall it
> as best as I can. It was a Sunday cartoon. Trudeau was railing about some
> alleged criminal activity or other, I don't recall exactly what. He went on
> and on for panel after panel. Which was fine.
> 
> The character saying this was the guy who does the radio shows. (Zonker?)
> Anyway, in the last few panels Zonker says something like this:
> 
> 	Of course only a court can determine guilt or innocence.
> 
> 	But, to this reporter at least, he's GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with SUGGESTING things like this. In fact, doing it
> cleverly is what good political satire is all about. But this ending was
> way over the line.

You're going back a long way on this one - approx 19 years.

The character making the comments was "Marvelous Mark" Slackmeyer, always the
outspoken one.  The case he was commenting on was Watergate, regarding
Nixon and co-conspirators.

Of course, this absolves the issue of unfair attacks: as everyone *knows*,
Nixon and Co. WERE guilty, right?

(Of course, Nixon never was PROVEN guilty, and is therefore, by our own
laws, as innocent as the driven snow)

(If you've ever seen the snow in Syracuse, you would know how *pure*
the driven snow can not be!)

-- 


 "Natural laws have no pity."       |   C.J. Burke
        Lazarus Long                |   GE Aerospace 
                                    |    (soon to be Martin Marietta)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: carroll@gloin.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:02:26 GMT

In article <13653@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]In article <104932@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
]]In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]]]a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
]]]his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
]] 
]] Hmmm. Kinsey would say that category describes 37% of the male population
]] in his 1948 study.
]] 
]] You're trying to use a definition that implies one statistic, and using
]] a completely DIFFERENT statistic (the famous 4%) to do your dirty work.
]] Not very intellectually honest, as Mark Carroll has pointed out.
]
]Kinsey's numbers have been suspect for a very long time.  The recent
]surveys in France and Britain show 4.1% and 6.1% of males having EVER
]had any homosexual contacts.  It is well-known that Kinsey's numbers
]are skewed because of large numbers of current and former prisoners.
]

No. They show 4.1% and 6.1% of males in England and France ADMITTING
TO having ever had any homosexual contacts. That's a different matter
entirely.

Given that the social climate is *very* hostile to gays, you wouldn't
expect closeted homosexuals to admit that they are gay, would you?

	<MC>

-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"In all seriousness of truth, hear this:
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| without the It, one cannot live. But
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || whoever lives with It alone is not
|| carroll@udel.edu             || human" - _I_and_Thou_, by Martin Buber
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:05:20 GMT

In article <Bz8HME.DGB@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>
>>It is also true that a free market economy is not good for all.  It is good
>>only for those who are willing to work in it.  Freeloaders do not exist to
>>drag down the economy, unless they are allowed to exist by private charities
>>(and they often are and generally have been throughout history by free market
>>style and other similar economic systems).
>I think free market is bad for a Hell of a lot more people than just the 
>freeloaders.  There have been millions of good, hard-working people who have
>been crapped on by America's not-even-free market.  Rich people have a head 
>start, poor people have a handicap, and whatever racial and religious group
>happens to be the 'in' crowd also has a foot in the door.
>
With a meddling government, I must say I agree with you.  With a government
which has no power to tax and give subsidies, etc.  That sort of thing would
be lessened incredibly.
-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64411 alt.politics.elections:24616
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The collapse of communism and the role of the U.S.
Summary: Yeltsin is just a better class of scum
Date: 15 Dec 92 03:16:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1992Dec3.190609.3276@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <21954@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec2.155739.23363@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:

>I think it might be better to say the western ideology won the
>Cold War.  The West was not the only one fighting against Communism.
>Yeltsin and his people were working from the inside to try to destroy
>it for quite some time.

Since when was Yeltsin working from the inside to destroy Communism? Since
1977? Since 1965?
The truth is he was a life long Communist Apparatchik who deserted the CPSU
like a rat from a sinking ship and has done very well for himself since. But
only after the Collapse was obvious. And exactly who are 'his people'? All
those refuseniks? dissenters? What does it take to be included as one of 'his
people'?


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:08:41 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
 <lii39iINN114@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Dec12.035123.15173@netcom.com>

In article <1992Dec12.035123.15173@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
says:
>
>In article <lii39iINN114@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David
>Chase) writes:
>    >In article <lihgi6INNb2h@spim.mti.sgi.com>
>    >mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>    >>The problem is that the health insurance companies make their
>    >>money on a percentage of the medical dollar spent. It is
>    >>against their best interest to hold down costs.
>
>Mr. Polen is utterly and absolutely DEAD wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.
>
>Insurance companies, in America, since 1968, do NOT make money on
>the policies they sell -- whether they be life, medical, or other.
>
>They make money by investing in (primarily) real estate and other
>long term investments.
>
>For example, CSAA  (AAA of N. Ca) was one of the better ones for
>1990 I think. They actually made 1/10 of one penny per dollar.
>
>Amazing -- but that was the year they really began cracking down
>on insurance fraud.
>
>Insurance companies for the last decade have begun limiting how much
>money they will pay, and what they will pay it for, to try and
>maintain costs.
>
>However, as some medical technology comes about with lightning speed,
>the insurance companies are getting blind-sided. For example, the
>debate on some of the bone-marrow removal/replacemenmt techniques
>for some cancers -- horribly expensive, but now the COURTS are deciding
>that insuarnce companies must pay for it because they did NOT specifically
>exclude it.

If an insurance company or self-insured firm is stupid enough these days
to leave a huge loophole in their contract by stating something to the effect
that all reasonable and standard medical care will be paid for then the court
should stick them with the bill.  If they are smart they write a clear and
detailed contract which specifies which experimental and alternative Tx
are not covered.  Then, they win their court case.  Since insurance contracts
are typically re-written annually, there is no good reason for not keeping
up with technology.  It is the lazy and the stupid firms who have been
burned in the fashion Phil describes.  They shouldn't be rewarded for trying
to appear like they cover more than they do at the time of the insurance
contract sale, but backing away from that appearance when they are called
on it.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:04:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.160641.24572@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
}Given that Mr. Meritt has just indicated he does not know what is
}meant by "consumed into poverty," he should explain how he can be sure
}that "Somolia has nothing and never has that we've 'consumed into
}poverty.'"

Since we have not consumed past trivia levels anything from somolia, I am
not sure what the quantifier means.  If "into poverty" means "spent ten
bucks" I guess we have.

Greg: noticed how quickly the Iraqi got the pictures of Saddam repainted?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64284 alt.drugs:19733 sci.econ:9397
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.drugs,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:09:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec11.003926.29217@midway.uchicago.edu>, bagg@ellis.uchicago.edu (matthew john baggott) writes:
> Jim Del Vecchio wrote:
# #	They always have owned it.   Classical Liberalism, aka 
# #libertarianism, aka laissez'faire capitalism, has always owned
# #this argument.  They were opposed by "liberals" aka "progressives"
# #aka socialist and planned economiesters who favored, and finally
# #established, Prohibition and other manfestations of the planned 
# #economy.   The social planners won, and their philosophy became 
# #the dominant one early on in this century.
# 
# This has a lot of truth to it, but it doesn't accurately recognize
# the historical forces which initiated and 'successfully'
# implemented the prohibitionist outlook.  The drive for prohibition was largely
# initiated by wealthy businessmen who believed that liquor was
# reducing the virtue and productivity of their workers.  Their anti-liquor
# attitude was soon shared by middle-class prohibitionists who sought
# to form a third political party and who opposed alcohol because

So why is that prominent middle-class prohibitionists predate
(by many years) such industrialist prohibitionists as Henry Ford?
You also left out the inconvenient fact that when Prohibition was
repealed, it was because some of America's wealthiest men, such as
the DuPont's, funded the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment
(AAPA).  They went on to form the Liberty League, the primary 
conservative opposition to FDR.

# they felt the government was supporting the alcohol trade.  These
# prohibitionists were generally opposed to industrialization and
# for them alcohol was partially symbolic of the process.  While

My reading of the origins of opposition to alcohol was because of
the very clear damage that alcohol was doing.  (It still does it,
but we recognize today that prohibition just socializes private
tragedies into public ones, without significantly lessening the
private tragedies.)

# the anti-liquor groups shared a general attitude, they opposed each other
# politically.  In neither case did the anti-liquor lobbies support socialism 
# or central planning.  The rich wanted to get wealthier by enforcing
# their idea of virtue while the less wealthy wanted get out from
# under the screws of business (sound like a socialist, don't I?).

I can't take your claim seriously.  Many of the more liberal elements
of the Progressive Era, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, supported Prohibition
(at first).

# #Jim Del Vecchio
# 
#     --M@


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:28:16 GMT

In article 3366@gn.ecn.purdue.edu, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
th either man.
>
>USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
>(I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
>Christians."
>
>Scary food for thought.

No it isn't.  Jimmy Carter considers himself a "born-again Christian".  Whether
or not the Republican Convention was dominated by the religious right is not as
important as the perception that it was.  That is one of the things that split
the vote.  I know some Republicans who voted for Clinton, in part, because they
feared that Bush was dominated too much by extremists.  He mistook his political
base for those who made the loudest noise.  Had he listened to his own "silent
majority", he would have had a shot at retaining the presidency. 

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:40:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec15.002504.16454@sequent.com>,
dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>Government should have power to regulate interactions between
>citizens such as murder, robbery, or commerce. But it should not be
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the business of regulating individual actions that are only the
>business of the individual.

And just how do you arrive at these particular three?  The first
are clearly related by the fact that they represent actions by one
person against another person without that other person's consent,
but the only context to which this can be extended in the general
area of commerce is "fraud", so why do you open the door to allowing
the government to meddle anywhere it wants to in the broad field of
commerce?  Isn't honest trade just the exercise of the same freedom
of choice that you wish to see perserved in more personal areas like
whether or not to wear a helmet?

/June
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64250 ca.politics:10328 ba.politics:7713
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:42:19 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Phil Ronzone) writes:
|>     >Mike Polen) writes:
|>     >>The problem is that the health insurance companies make their
|>     >>money on a percentage of the medical dollar spent. It is
|>     >>against their best interest to hold down costs.
|> 
|> Mr. Polen is utterly and absolutely DEAD wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.
|> 
|> Insurance companies, in America, since 1968, do NOT make money on
|> the policies they sell -- whether they be life, medical, or other.
|> 
|> They make money by investing in (primarily) real estate and other
|> long term investments.
|> 
|> For example, CSAA  (AAA of N. Ca) was one of the better ones for
|> 1990 I think. They actually made 1/10 of one penny per dollar.
|> 
Sorry.  But you missed the point.  The insurance companies invest thier
reserves, controlled by the amount of money they collect and retain.  
This figure is a percentage of their revenues.  They have the luxury
of changing prices to reflect costs to keep their expenses below
revenue.  Their efforts to crack down on fraud are laudatory, but
when they do not succeed, they raise rates.

|> Amazing -- but that was the year they really began cracking down
|> on insurance fraud.
|> 
|> Insurance companies for the last decade have begun limiting how much
|> money they will pay, and what they will pay it for, to try and
|> maintain costs.

Why?  They just charge you and me when costs go up.  Sometimes, however,
they change the rules (deductibles, options, limits, covered services,
etc.) to make it seem like the rates don't go up, but benefits have 
gone down and costs have gone up -- and they do not care.  They
actually benefit.  Their attempts at cost control are to try to
keep from losing customers, not to keep revenue down.  Show me
an insurance companies whose revenue per policy has gone down over
the last 10 years.  They can not afford to let that happen.
|> 
|> However, as some medical technology comes about with lightning speed,
|> the insurance companies are getting blind-sided. For example, the
|> debate on some of the bone-marrow removal/replacemenmt techniques
|> for some cancers -- horribly expensive, but now the COURTS are deciding
|> that insuarnce companies must pay for it because they did NOT specifically
|> exclude it.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.org.un,alt.current-events.somalia
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:59:37 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc


| The North American Man/Boy Love Association is a civil rights/
| political organization.  We support men and boys in CONSENSUAL
| relationships with one another and help educate society about
| the true nature of such relationships.
	.
	.
	.
| NAMBLA does not provide referrals or assistance for people
| seeking sexual contacts, nor do we engage in activities that
| violate the law.  We unequivocally condemn all coersive acts,
| sexual or otherwise.


I think it is the name of the organization,"North American Man/Boy
Love Association" that gets you into trouble. As a concervative het
it certainly -sounds- suspicious to me. If the second paragraph is true 
(and I have no reason to believe it's not). Then you might want to
think about changing the name. Thanks for the info.

| Merry Christmas Jim,

Merry Christmas to you too Roy.

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64801 alt.current-events.somalia:653 alt.president.clinton:1187
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:44:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BzFozx.Fr6@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

|The press was informed of the landing, and they were told to "Stay off the
|beach!!"  They hit Pete Williams pretty hard the day after with questions
|like "But did you tell us not to use lights?".  They were told to use the
|control tower, the view would be great, and any lights wouldn't be a problem.
|They were not told not to use lights, but they were told to stay off the
|beach.

Maybe no one told the media not to use lights, because nobody thought the
media would be stupid enough to use lights.  After all it is pretty
obvious that the reason you land at night is so that the other side
can't see you.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc