HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:03:15 GMT

STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
>Anyone who has seriously sat down and watched Rush could not say that he hates
> anyone.  You have to know when he is joking and when he is serious but even
> when
>joking he does not spread hate for anyone   -Rich

He claimed that a pair of prominent black politicians, who do not agree
on many policies, still felt that they have to 'stick together with their
'bros''.  To my knowledge, the use of the term 'bro' in that context can
have none other than an offensive racial interpretation.

If it is a joke, it is a hateful joke, see?

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:51:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      rush spike racism

No, Hitler was a bigot in 1932, and he arose to become a very powerful
bigot who slaughtered millions of people.

He was a bigot who made racism the state policy of his country.
He used his personal power to, gruesomely enough, empower the German
people to exploit a minority.

Which raises interesting questions about the power of the rest of
the world to stop what happened in Nazi Germany.

I'm digressing a little, but I think racism is racism, and it is caused
by powerful bigots.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:47:28 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: your mail

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

>the reason why is because robert, travis, pizz and caius do not live in SF.

Do you suppose if we took up a collection and sent them there they would
staighten the place out? B)

>-linda

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:58:11 U
From:         KirkpatrickH <kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG>
Subject:      RE: Spike Lee, Racism and other niceties
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Rick,
It takes a rare and special person to respond as composed and "upbeat" as you
have. Thank you for alles.

I'll be looking for you when you get back.

Frohe Weihnachten and Gutes Neues Jahr.

Kirk
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: rightist
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:13:43 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes:
>The correction: (on calling Nazis rightist)
>
>"this terminology has been accepted only by the leftist media and some
> of those who listen to the media stated"
>
>Better?

Not much, no.  It seems much more sensible to say that "this terminology
has only been rejected by people who don't understand their historical
context very well."

>I just CANNOT accept putting the "rightist" label to everything that the
>media dislike. The same people put the "conservative" label to the Soviet
>communist hard-liners, that have quite opposite views.

The best I can tell, the media doesn't like the HIV virus.  They seem
to agree with almost everything, that it is a bad thing to have happen
to you, to get this virus inside your body.  But they don't call it
"rightist". 

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:21:55 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: On Rightism,
              A Reply to the Notion that Nazis Aren't Rightists...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Dec 16, 92 7:29 pm

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:

>> Under the rightist regimes of Hitler, Pinochet, Mussolini, and
>> Franco, there was no government intervention? What does one call use

Rightist regimes of Franco and Pinochet OK.

All right, i didnt want to say that, Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin
LEFTIST regimes.


>>
>> >2) Strong government in for(g?)e?ing relations and in providing
>> >security to citizens.
>>
>> I assume you meant "forging," and I would contend that Hitler, and to
>> a lesser degree, the other three examples, "forged relations" by terror

foreign

Each country has it's own interest and speaking about "world peace"
and "disarmaments" is stupid (i think).



>>
>> >Killing people is by no means rightist!!
>>
>> No, it is not. But, "rightists" are not excluded from murder, as the
>> case cited above, as many a history book in the West have damned both

Murder is a criminal not political factor. Let's not try to distinguish
right-left on the fact if a peson is a murderer.

You are trying to call the Nazis rigthist because they have killed
somebody.

>> the Nazis and Communists of doing - all groups, from "Shining Path,"
>> the Peruvian leftists, to the "rightist" (very conservative)
>> Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon. There is a large spectrum on the

You have no my agreement to calling Hezbollah conservative (reason: no support
for free market)


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:02:41 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Packwood, Inouye, Thomas, etc....
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>> >How about it's because Packwood "admitted" his wrongdoings and Inouye has
>> >denied his.
>> >
>> >Jonathan
>>
>>         Just like Clarence Thomas.
>>
>> Brett'
>>
>
>What's the point of this?  If Inouye was going for a seat on the
>bench he would be forced to face his accusar.  But in fact the
>people of Hawaii voted for him despite knowledge of accusations of
>his "wrongdoings".

        So it's ok?

>Packwood LIED about his wrongdoings to the press until after the
>election.  Then he "admitted" them.
>
>Now if Inouye had come out after the election and had said that
>he had done the things that he was accused of, I would feel the
>same sort of disgust that I have for Packwood toward Inouye.

        So as long as he maintains his innocence, everything is ok?  LIke I
said, Mr. Thomas has maintained his version of what happened (or didn't) with
Ms. Hill, yet the press continues to BBQ him.

>And the press would be covering Inouye as well as Packwood.

        They should be anyway, whether he "admits" it or not.

        The funny part is that the Inouye story broke first, but was then
dropped.

>But he didn't.  So they aren't.  If you want the press to follow
>rumors, why didn't they make more of a stink about Bush's infidelities?

        As soon as 10 women step forward, they will :).

>It's not all a big giant liberal conspiracy!
>Jonathan

        Of course not.  It's reporters and editors looking the other way while
one of their own is caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:02:52 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: rightist
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              wales" at Dec 15, 92 7:36 pm

jimmy donal wales pisze:
>>
>>
>> You're new to the list, so you don't know me.  I've been watching
>> your posts with some interest, since I think that you and I may
>> have some similar ideas on some subjects.  For example, I noticed
>> that you cited a book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
>> an organization of which I am a member.  I went to Auburn University
>> as an undergraduate, and I know some of the economists there.

Please tell me more on the economist in Auburn. From my point of view the
world seems to be dominated by the Keynesians, neo-keynesians,
pro-keynesians and so on.

And only a handful of people who try to teach the facts about economy.

The communist planned economy has been officially abolished in Eastern
Europe, but it still works under a new name ...

"Market Economy"

I try to fight all those who put the labels to wrong things. I believe
market will just work better, as it has worked for the centuries.

Caius.



PS. I have purchased the book mentioned for a 1/10th price of a normal book
on the same subject, so I was surprised what the value it has offerd.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:42:17 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>while real wages decreased in the 80's.

        Just wanted to address this point.  Real wages declined in the 70s
also.  If I could find an old enough (or comprehensive enough :) almanac, I'm
sure we'd see a decline in the 60s also.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:47:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Diversity of Views at Clinton's

People don't seem to understand that the real value of Clinton's
conference was not in "opening the doors of the White House" for one
and all to contribute -- regardless of how it was billed.

The real, and IMHO quite significant, value of it was that in doing this,
Clinton opened a >window<.  Clinton is the one who's going to make the
decisions, and I am pretty sure he already knows what he has in mind.
But in doing this "media stunt," Clinton allowed the public to for the
first time actually look in on deliberations.  For too long, IMHO,
government has had the attitude that ordinary citizens should not be
privy to hardly >anything< once the citizens have cast their votes.

Obviously, the people cannot be privy to >all< important deliberations.
But the government has been treating the public like children for a
long time.  (There actually was someone, a Clinton supporter, on
the Larry King show after the first day who whined, "This is a terrible
mistake.  They shouldn't be doing this.  What he ought to be doing is
going behind closed doors and making the decisions with cluster groups
in secrecy.")  No wonder the public doesn't trust the government any more.
After Election Day, they're never let in on >anything<.  That is, until
a scandal breaks.

I think the American do understand that Clinton has his own agenda and is
not likely to make major changes; he wants support for >his< agenda.  But
at least he is giving the American people a chance to understand why he
is proposing what he's proposing, and why he's concerned with what he's
concerned about -- even if they don't agree with it.  Plenty of dissension
and debate will be aired by those who oppose Clinton's plans.  We will
hear it.  It's not as if we won't hear it just because Clinton chose
people who largely agreed with him.

The conference was a small first step in regaining the public's trust and
sense of connection with their own leaders, and I applaud Clinton for
risking it.  I frankly had my doubts about it being a "media circus," but
I am much more optimistic now that he understands what has to be done to
regain public trust and to make things work.



Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:24:50 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              15, 92 7:55 am

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> > Homosexuals have the same right to have a life and property, and to defend
>> > those rights in the court.But they are NOT normal, and I think that should
 be
>> > clearly stated.
>>
>> > Caius.
>>
>> Would you please define "normal."
>>

Homosexuals are not normal. They can do whatever they want in private,
but I don't think we all have to consider they normal.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      rush spike racism

So,

Hitler was a bigot in 1932 ... then became a racist in 1933 ... then
went back to the status of bigot just before killing himself. I like
a good effort at distinction, but I think this is a bit arbitrary
conceptually.                      psr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:00:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Other People's Money

KAT says:

.stuff deleted.

> I have no problem with the above.  In fact I agree with the sentiment
> that our leaders and elected officials are not spending our money
> wisely or ethically.  However, your tone above is markedly different
> from claiming that tax money is private money "taken" away from
> individuals.

I just put it more politely; see what working in Washington, DC does to
you? :-)

- David (so what about this "Hoss" thing? I'm not sure it fits me...)

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
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:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:16:52 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>        ESOPs are nice, but not all businesses can be run by committee :).  You
>still need a CEO or president who will run things.

Yes, but that CEO reports to somebody, too, and at that level I would like
to see it be the workers that he is reporting and responsible to.

Ideally, I would like to see total ownership of larger (that have gone
public) in the hands of the workers and a trend toward worker ownership
in smaller businesses.

>        One thing about worker input: what happens when the workers decide to
>make widget Y, and get slaughtered in the marketplace?  I don't think N people
>will be any more successful than 1 or several in decided what to make and when
>to make it.

Maybe not, but on the other hand is there any evidence that they would be
*less* successful? Given that the answer is likely not, I would say that
the potential benefits far outweigh the risks.


>        I'd rather see "local" input control.  Where (say)assembly workers have
>input over assembly issues but not marketing, design, etc.

I would like to see larger control given to the workers; I have seen
people of diverse abilities work together toward common ends, I think
that assembly workers might have a great deal of insight in the areas
that you describe and more. Further, I think a world of good (and
understanding) can come from encouraging someone like an assembly
worker to become involved in learning about engineering, design,
marketing, etc. - the potential benefits to a company of this are
enormous.

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:55:42 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> Homosexuals have the same right to have a life and property, and to defend
> those rights in the court.But they are NOT normal, and I think that should be
> clearly stated.

> Caius.

Would you please define "normal."

--KAT
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (RICK GEORGE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Spike Lee and Racism
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:27:44 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

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

Not to arouse the anti-semantic crowd, but I think that your definition
of racism more accurately fits the word discrimination.  As has been
pointed out, conventional definitions of racism include beliefs of
racial superiority and inferiority.

Thus the statement that Spike Lee discriminates on the basis of
race may be more tenable for you.  Of course you may have some quotes
from Lee where he declares blacks superior to whites (or other races),
in which case I'd be interested reading them.  While I don't agree
with everything that Lee does, overall I think he's been a very
positive force, both in terms of the opportunities that he has given
to people and the issues that he has raised.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:14:28 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>        Are those advocating N% increases in pay for N% increases in profits
>>willing to take N% cuts in pay when the business losses N%?
>
>Absolutely, with the proviso that workers have a means of participating
>heavily in the decision making process. I *like* the idea of ESOP's,
>I would love to see it become the rule rather than the exception.
>
>I imagine that this wouldn't be too popular with the Wall Street
>types though.
>-other Andy

        ESOPs are nice, but not all businesses can be run by committee :).  You
still need a CEO or president who will run things.  In general, ESOPs are
simply a way for the average worker to participate in the selection process.

        Wall Street shouldn't have any problems with it.  AVIS and other ESOPs
don't suffer from the stigma :).

        One thing about worker input: what happens when the workers decide to
make widget Y, and get slaughtered in the marketplace?  I don't think N people
will be any more successful than 1 or several in decided what to make and when
to make it.
        On the contrary, getting a large group of people together usually
results in infamous "design by committee" monstrosities.

        I'd rather see "local" input control.  Where (say)assembly workers have
input over assembly issues but not marketing, design, etc.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:08:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: racism

Ellen says:

> As for your points about Affirmative Action and other programs, I
> tend not to believe in quotas, and I'm glad our incoming president
> doesn't seem to be too keen on them either.  But they are not
> racist programs, in my view.  They are not about one group of people
> >in power< oppressing a whole other group of people.

Note: I will use Kerry's definitions of "bigotry", "discrimination",
and "racism".

How are these programs not racist?  That the "whole other group
of people" may share the same race as the "one group of people
in power" is beside the point, if the effect: discrimination
based on race, is the same. (I'm assuming Ellen's definition of
racism is the same as Kerry's).

I'm unsure as to what this thread is about, other than to say
racism is wrong, ugly, and, ultimately, stupid. Therefore I ask (nicely,
in a polite and moderate tone :-)):
Is anyone arguing that racism is the official policy of any organization,
public or private, of any importance (i.e., exclude the KKK)?
If not, and given that discrimination is illegal, what is being advocated?

I submit that there is no public policy served by using
race/ethnicity classifications, with the exception of law
enforcement/ID purposes. I think such groupings are used as
poor proxies for more important and *individual*
characteristics like education level, health status/risk and
socioeconomic status. Furthermore, I think our attempts to
statistically measure *possible* discrimination have increased
"race conciousness"; leading to remedies and preemptive actions
based on group membership, however ill-defined, rather than
actual harm done to an individual.

- David, who's glad to see Kirk is another "Rush" fan

David "New Jersey" Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:30:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      digital displays

heyheyhey,
another day another chance to watch the boys compete over the silliest things.

stay tuned for kat and jimbo as they fight to the finish in a bloody display
of .....DUELING DIGITS.

right after this message from playschool toys ....

-linda
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:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:04:20 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"

Brett' says:

>        I've seen just as much class warfare from those stating that
>proportionally more taxes should be taken from the rich simply because "they
>have it".  Why is this acceptable when supposedly targetting the poor is not?

Brett', does a progressive tax structure deprive the wealthy of having
the basic necessities? Does it deprive them of a meaningful reward for
their labors?

Don't forget that .30 of every tax dollar collected is transferred into
the hands of the wealthy as interest payment on the debt, effectively
lowering their rate. In other words, progressivity is an attempt to
cause the wealthy to pay the same real rate that everyone else does.
The attempt usually fails.

>        Just wondering about double standards....

Let's create a reasonable standard of living that everyone can reasonably
attain, then we'll worry about double standards.

>Brett'

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics