HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:38:57 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Heading for the beach

Lots of talk about what will/won't/should/shouldn't happen regarding
Irag. I don't see any reason why Clinton should feel obligated to go
back and finish the job. We had everyone in place and could have ended
it in a hurry. Now the new administration has to decide "Is it worth
it to go back"? I think our role will be limited to air and sea support
with no ground troops.

It was never established beyond a doubt that Iraqi forces were massing
on the border prior to the first war. There is a lot of evidence to
suggest that we helped Saddam Hussein get where he is today. If George
thinks the job is not finished he should have arranged to finish it
before leaving office. I don't see us having anything to gain by a
return visit. Has anyone seen an interview with Colin Powell or somone
in a similar position regarding their thoughts on where we stand?
Does anybody know what the new administration's official policy is?

fred
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:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:41:48 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?

Hi, y'all:
Carl wrote:
>   I was just wondering why the Liberals are not accepting Packwood's
>apology.  He does seem to be sorry for what he has done and even seems
>willing to be rehabilitated.  Isn't that the Liberal message for criminals?
>Don't blame the person, blame the social enviroment and try to rehabilitate
>the criminal to function in society as a productive individual.  I guess if
>Packwood killed somebody then it would be allright, but harrassment is worse
>isn't it?  Besides, everyone knows that dirty ol' white men can't be
>rehabilitated.

Note:  as I wrote this, I realized I was writing as though Packwood *had*,
in fact, committed sexual harrassment.  So y'all should read "alleged" into
many of the spaces between words, ok?

I'm not a Liberal, so maybe I shouldn't answer this :)  But here are a few
thoughts.  First, why not accept his apology?  Well, I haven't heard him
apologize for sexually harrassing anyone.  I *have* heard him say something
to the effect of "gee, if I did something that upset someone, then I'm
sorry."  That's hardly the same thing as recognizing that he did something
wrong, admitting it, and moving on from there.

Is he willing to be rehabilitated?  I heard he got some treatment for
alcoholism.  I haven't heard anything about him educating himself about
sexual harrassment.  I can accept that alcoholism may have facilitated his
actions -- or made it harder for him to control himself -- but I doubt that
it caused his behavior.  So I don't see treatment for alcoholism as being
equivalent to rehabilitation vis-a-vis sexual harrassment.

Should we let him try again?  Not knowing any of the details of the case, I
can only say that, as a general rule, I'm willing to let him prove himself
"cured" or rehabilitated, or whatever.  *Then* I could see giving him
another chance.  Letting him carry on business as usual, though, doesn't
cut it.

What do y'all think?
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:37:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: B/Hillary Clinton

I'd like to ask Robert:

        If you were a veteran entitled to VA Hospital Benefits, but could
afford private health care, which would you choose in case you needed surgery:

        A. The abominable VA hospital system

        B. Private Hospital

If you chose B, would that be unpatriotic?  Would it be somehow wrong?  Or
ould it be the only logical solution until the VA could be reformed?


BTW - VMS: I agree with you re: religion and this list.  Unfortunately, being
religious is often like being a smoker or alcoholic:

        Many facts may be presented, but if you don't want to quit your
unhealthy and destructive behavior, you'll rationalize your lifestyle
forever (or, I guess, until your "knee bends, etc ad nauseam...").


        Religion is a _choice_ - it's not genetic; you can live your aberrant
and sick lifestyle in the privacy of your own home and place of worship -
but don't expect "special rights & privileges" - ie tax breaks for donations,
tax exemption for religious groups, national holidays for religious holy days,
etc.


        Turnabout places that mirror awful close, eh?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:38:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

> Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:42:04 EST
> From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
>
> >
> >From Robert
> >That's Word with a "W" and God with a "G".  Leviticus 18:22 specifically says
> >you are not to engage in homosexuality.  If you're not to do it, then you
> >evidently have (1) the choice to do otherwise.  It also says the act is an
> >abomination (2) perversion.  To go against the Word is (3) a sin.  The
> >Bible is the Word so (4) you're against it.
>
> Well, doesn't the biBle say that Adultery, Divorce, Sex for Fun (as
> opposed to 'Sex for Procreation') and other assorted pastimes
> are also against The worD? Should people who have Sex for
> Fun not have the same rights as people who only have Sex
> for Procreation?  How about the People Who Mix Cereal in the
> Morning? Should They be denied housing because of it?
> How about People Who Wear Blended Fabrics?

   It is a misconception that sex is only for procreation.  Take the time
   to read the Song of Solomon and you will discover that God gave the gift
   of sex to be enjoyed,not just for procreation.  As for adultery, it is a
   sin and God recommends that one not engage in that behavior.  In Proverbs
   one is reminded to delight in his/her spouse and to not defile themselves
   but to remain pure for each other.  (What's so bad about that, if you
   love someone why do anything else?)  Divorce is not suggested as the
   answer to marital problems, but it is permitted.

   The objective of God is not to restrict the amount of fun one has, but
   to provide guidelines that will help the person to avoid the painful
   consequences of sinful actions.  For instance, a divorce is a physical
   and psychological nightmare for all involved.  An adulterer can get a
   sexual disease, not to mention the damage these actions will have on
   their partner and the relationship.  Homosexual behavior is not only
   unnatural, but it is dangerous to both partners.  The anal tissue cannot
   stand up to the stresses of anal sex, not too mention the higher chances
   for disease and infection.

> And that reminds me.  How come it was ok for god and the Devil
> to make bets about poor old pitiful and gullible Job, but
> gambling is a sin? hmm?

   Satan and God did not make a bet.  Satan was confident that he could make
   Job curse the Lord.  God knew that Job would not curse him and allowed
   Satan to cause harm to Job except for death.  In the end Job did not curse
   God and Satan was proved wrong, but nowhere is it mentioned that it was a
   bet.

> jcs, one of the brown bruces.



carl---+
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, 11 Jan 1993 12:23:17 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      left, right, left...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Caius asks:

>Please define THE RIGHT (rightist, right-wing etc)
>              THE LEFT  (letfist, left-wing)

Right and Left are whatever you want them to be; they are situational
terms that become meaningless when not defined by the context of a
single, unified political entity with a history of process. (In the case
of a forming country, generally the history of process is the one which
is brought to bear by the conquering force, revolutionary organization
or founders.)

Right and Left are gross distinctions which assume context, they are
not ideologies themselves, the breadth (or lack of definition) of the
ideology determines the scope that the right/left distinction will have.

In the same way the terms Conservative and Liberal are meaningless without
context, their scope is too large.

When these terms are used to describe things on a global scale, the scope
of the items that they are used to describe is too large; certainly there
are correlations that can be found among a variety of political systems,
but the correlations relate items that are too vastly different in both
theory and practice to be significant, defining distinctions.

Suppose my car and a bulldozer both use similar fuel-injection systems in
their engines; we can find a number of other correlations between the
two things, but ultimately their functions are utterly different, thus
making a comparison based upon some of their similar systems insignificant
if we wish to compare the effects of the use of the two things in a
situation.

So, since a definition of right/left distinctions by common usage does
not satisfy you; go ahead and use it any way you want, though it is
quite possible that nobody will know what you are rambling on about.

>Caius

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Price stability
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:09:40 GMT

Grzegorz Albinowski writes:
>Stephan Melin pisze:
>> What one really needs is stability and no
>> inflation or deflation.
>
>Agreed. But i think deflation is still better than inflation.

I disagree.

One of the most important roles of prices is as a mechanism for the
conveyance of information.  In order to carry out this function, prices
must be free to fluctuate... to reflect new information.

Now, the major problem with deflation/inflation is _not_ (a) the overall
rise/fall in prices or (b) the ensuing instability of prices, per se.
The problem with deflation/inflation is the distortion of the price
information mechanism, thus rendering decision-making difficult, thus
leading to overall lower welfare.

Note that my claim is that although anticipated inflation is of course
less problematic than unanticipated inflation, it could well be the case
that there exists no practical mechanism by which inflation could ever leave
the structure of relative prices (and thus the information mechanism)
unaffected.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:22:46 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of 06 Jan 93 13:08:09 CDT from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

From: sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet
*** Resending note of 01/06/93 13:07

From jc-s
Well, doesn't the Bible say that Adultery, Divorce, Sex for Fun (as
opposed to 'Sex for Procreation') and other assorted pastimes
are also against The Word?.........

From Robert
Adultery and most divorce grounds are against the Word.  Sex (making love)
is a gift to heterosexual married couples.  It is also fun.

From jc-s
And that reminds me.  How come it was ok for "G"od and the Devil
to make bets about poor old pitiful and gullible Job, but
gambling is a sin? hmm?

From Robert
Just another example of your misunderstanding or denial of the "W"ord.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:51:18 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: the biBle
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Once again, it seems relevant to point out that the list POLITICS is not
for the purposes of religious prozlytizing, or for promoting the Bible as
a text with political effacy. It seems to this insignificant individual
that this religion business is, as is sexual preference and other areas,
a matter of personal choice. To use religion, or religious beliefs, to
buttress political arguments is to subvert both the rules and spirit of
the list, and in addition, is quite annoying in that religious belief does
NOT constitute, to my mind, a base for political argument. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:07:31 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject: Re: school daze
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Brett' says:
>
> > Clinton has been a supporter of public schools.  Sending his kid to a
> > private one thus appears hypocritical.
>
> Quite so. Clinton also supports school "choice" but only among public schools:
> some choice.
>
> Poor and not-so-poor parents are just as concerned about their children's
> education as are the Clintons. They are also just as capable of making
> good decisions about education.  Why not give them the same ability to
> make a choice, through vouchers, refunds, etc.?
Aside from the problems of tax money being paid to religious instititutions,
I can think of a very good reason not to have a voucher plan.  Our
$400 Billion deficit.  Current estimates hold that to properly fund a
real school choice plan would cost in the neighborhood of $40 Billion a year.
Where do you suppose that money should come from?
>
> - David
>
> David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
>

Jonathan
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:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:20:28 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              23, 92 9:00 am

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> Would it be awful if one was for freedom of speech for all
>> except those who are against freedom of speech?

Awful, even those should have that right

>> --KAT

Caius

----

There was a Lenin's slogan : "No freedom for enemies of freedom". Look what
it created after just 70 years.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:43:46 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: the biBle
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

1
>
> In article <19930106.154224.sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>,
>    Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes...
> >From:
> >*** Resending note of 01/06/93 12:08
> >
> >From Jonathan
> >The bible is a bunch of made-up stories written by old men and it has no
> >semblance of truth in it.
> >
> >From Robert
> >Thank you Jonathan, for that brilliant display of blasphemy.  There will
> >come a day when every knee shall bend and every tongue will confess the
> >one true living "G"od.  Even you.
>
> My stepbrother once gave me a booklet entitled "Words to Live By".  The
> contents read, "Never argue with crazy people."  In this case, I believe that
> declining to argue with thickheaded people also applies, and therefore, I will
> leave this issue alone, other than to remind Mr. Moss of Hamlet's words to
> Horatio, "There are more wonders [?] in heaven and earth/Than are dreamed of
 in
> your philosophy."
>
>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum
>
My feeling is similar.  Although I can't seem to help tweaking them
from time to time! :-)

Jonathan

And as a P.S. to Robert, I am relatively sure that the 1 Billion+ Buddhists
feel very similar to my viewpoints, (i.e. that the bible is a bunch of hooey).
This puts you in the minority.  But I don't, necessarily, think that you
should be discriminated against!  But, when you do go to meet that great
big buddha in the sky (or is it buddhas?, no it's buddha, this is the
re-incarnation religion.  Isn't it?), I hope that you have a good
explanation for your intransigence.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:30:46 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boy

>From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>Brett' says:
>
>>         Homosexuality among various animals also disproves the "unnatural"
>>part.
>
>        I agree that homosexuality is _not_ unnatural, but I disagree with the
>above.  Homosexuality among _humans_ is pertinent; the sexual practices of
>animals has nothing to do with proving or disproving anything about the sexual
>practices of humans.  In fact, many homophobics use the reverse argument
>(equally extraneous) "hardly any animals are homosexual" to prove _their_ point

I agree both that homosexuality is not unnatural, and with T that
it is RARELY relevant to mention the sexual practices of animals
when making claims about the sexual practices of humans.
But I think T goes to far. Humans ARE animals. Our biology is
continuous with that of the rest of the animal kingdom. We do,
occasionally, learn things about ourselves from studies of other
critters, especially primates.

Where's Kerry?

Jamie
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: school daze
Date: 10 Jan 1993 13:10 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93010815374468@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,      
   SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET writes...
>The following excerpts are from the article which ran in the Tulsa World
>Jan. 3, 93.
> 
>    Math's emphasis will change beginning with fifth grade.  Instead
>    of computing with pencil and paper, students will spend more time
>    learning how to estimate results and use calculators.
> 
>    "There is still a need for exact numbers, but those can be
>     figured with hand-held calculators"
>                  - Gwen Humphrey, curriculum manager, Tulsa Pub Schools
> 
>    "...It doesn't matter how many homework assignments are completed
>     or how neat the student's work looks."
>                  - Jon Sisson, principal

Now I see what they mean.  We're talking about a change in the curriculum from
result to process.  That, I think, is fairly useful.  There's a good deal more
importance in understanding how to get a result, and where to use various
methods, than in learning 3456/12.

Disclaimer:  I'm a law student, so I'm being taught to think procedure is a
more effective weapon than substance at times.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:17:52 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Robert quoting the Bible:
>"for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,

How come you don't follow the example of your heavenly boss? How
come you hate such a huge part of humankind (you can calculate how
many gays and lesbians there are in the world) ?
Sam.
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, 6 Jan 1993 14:22:41 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: it's a wonderful life
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>a smaller percent of the tax burden and could be interpreted as a tax
>>cut in a certain sense.
>
>kinda like when you say you saved a ton of money because you bought something
>on sale.....so where's the actual money??? i mean, did the guy at the register
>actually give you money to put in your pocket when you bought this thing?
>also like when some guy loses an election and says he really won because he
>didn't lose by much. (think jimbo :))

        After Clinton "soaks the rich", the "rich" will put their money back
into tax-free investments, the amount of money coming in from the top 10% will
drop, and the result will be that the middle class is paying a higher share
than before.

        Some tax "cut".

        This has happened before.  It will happen again this time.

>...
>>A new study has come out on the danger of second hand smoke. If we
>>can remove children from a home for parental alcohol abuse during
>>pregnancy, can we/should we do the same thing for exposure to second
>>hand smoke?
>
>fred? can we really remove children from the home because a parent drinks
>while pregnant?
>
>who is going to be in charge of investigating smokers? can we destroy families
>on the basis of a scientific study? i mean, is it the job of the gov't. to
>force a healthy lifestyle on its citizens? do we criminalize drinkers, smokers,
>or those who's caloric intake of fat is more than the recommended 30% ??
>after all, a high fat diet has been shown to contribute to obesity, heart
>disease, increased risk of cancer, etc. etc.  should we remove children from
>the home because their parents feed them too many greasy hamburgers?

        Before you use this as a drastic example, it has already happened.  In
Rochester, NY, a physician reported a couple to the state agency because their
kids were fat.
        The state is now trying to take them away from the parents for that
reason.

>IM o so HO, i would rather gov't stay out of our habits, out of our lifestyles
>and out of our homes.

        Me too.  And I'd rather be a fat kid than a kid of alcoholics or
abusers, or of absentee parents who go to Mexico during Xmas.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:02:01 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: why gold - money qualities
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Albinowski" at Jan 5, 93 5:29 pm

Grzegorz Albinowski sleepily stated:

| Gold is not a perfect money, but is still better than gov't controlled money.

        But, If gold is used as a "money", isn't it inherently
government controlled? Doesn't it have to be? Sure, With gold (or
bannanas or pebbles), there is no way the government can hoard it all,
but, it can certainly hoard quite a bit. By this method, the
government can easily control the flow of currency, as they do with
paper (and coin) currency. In truth, the only really perfect type of
currency is none at all, otherwise known as (good) barter or (bad)
anarchy.

--
   Cousin It                                 cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
        "Time has changed the seasons, and I go on with
           no reason, I feel my life slipping away"
                     Riot "Bloodstreets"