HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:30:37 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>>     The actual amount that each individual pays for the NEA each
>>>   year makes it kind of a minor point to argue about.
>>
>>Really?  Then ELIMINATING the NEA is just a minor thing.  If the money
>>wasn't important, it wouldn't be protected so vehemently.
>
>    What I meant was that people spend, in reality, far less on the
>  NEA than they seem to think, and that it is an infinitessimally
>  small part of the Federal budget.

So?  I'm pointing out that that point is irrelevant, that it's a
strawman invented by NEA supporters.  (It's a strawman because they
don't accept that argument when it is used to justify a program they
don't agree with.)  I realize that it's convenient to define one's
opponents' position, but opponents aren't obligated to be convenient.

>  It is merely being used as a tool
>  of the Religious Right to make people believe they are spending
>  hundreds of dollars every year (which they are not) on "pornography"

No, they're being forced to cough up hundreds of MILLIONs every
year to buy something they don't value.

>  so that people will be more likely to be fooled into believing that
>  they represent the mainstream in the US.

If the mainstream believed in NEA art, it wouldn't depend on
subsidies.  The art that the mainstream believes in gets along just
fine with the mainstream's voluntary support.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:26:20 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Litigation

>We are the most litagous nation in the world, and we are amongst the
>most law conscious and law-plagued of modern day societies.

According to Mike Ryko (I've omitted letters I don't pronounce), a
huge majority of that litigation is divorce related.  Now what?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:37:43 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      It's always the money

>     The actual amount that each individual pays for the NEA each
>   year makes it kind of a minor point to argue about.

Really?  Then ELIMINATING the NEA is just a minor thing.  If the money
wasn't important, it wouldn't be protected so vehemently.

Or, maybe everyone in the US should give me $1.  After all, it's only
a buck, and it's only once, and I'll be so much better off afterwards.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:05:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>
>>        hey, to me (and hence to just about everyone) $.64 ain't
>>        a whole lot.
>
>Then why did you people scream about the $2k coffee pots?  The
>individual share of those was much less, yet suddenly its the
>total spent, not each individual's share.


     If you think art is a waste of money along the same lines
    as a $2k coffee pot, then you're leading a rather empty life.

>>        i mean, you might still be able to find some
>>        penny candy for that much, but its getting rare.
>
>So?  Why shouldn't that be MY decision?  Moreover, it obviously can't
>buy much art either.

    Actually, your penny buys you every artistic resource in your
  community.  If you enjoy ANY of them, even once a year, you've
  gotten your money back.


>-andy
-
-G. Racz
From: MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:35:44 GMT
Organization: York University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dear Travis,
  When you can tell me what's charitable about the Bakkers, Swaggart,
Falwell, Reagan, & Anita Bryant, I'll be glad to re-consider your proposal
for declaring churches charitable. And, of course, when they stop making
obscene profits, we might want to consider that aspect, too.
Cheers,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Original_cc:  HOUSSAH5
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:04:00 +0200
From:         HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Subject:      RE:Re:Bosnia Conflict

Well, at last someone is talking sense here. Thank you G. Racz.

 I strongly endorse you on your opinions that we should have done
something a long time ago. I agree with you that the US is morally
responsible for what is happenning now. Finally I admire you for
your honesty and self respect.

-Gilbert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:34:07 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bosnia conflict

>>>   The US is the only country left with a military force capable of exerting
>>>   powerful force on its own anywhere in the world.
>>
>>But Bosnia isn't "anywhere in the world"; it is in Europe's backyard.
>>There are at least TWO european powers that could "do something"
>>without any help, and several others that could cooperate.
>
>     My anger and disappointment is not solely leveled at the
>  US government.  However, just because they don't do anything doesn't
>   mean we shouldn't, either.

Then the US specific arguments are irrelevant.

Let's try again; why is "doing something" in US interests?

>>>   If the US (with the UN) had gone in a long time ago,
>>>   the Serbians could have been discouraged from invading Bosnia and
>>>   Croatia.
>>
>>How?  By threatening to nuke Croatia?  Be precise - what is the "or
>>else"?  (Has the "we could easily beat the warring parties" argument
>>disappeared?)
>
>     A force stationed in a protective stance in Croatia and
>    Bosnia would certainly have made the Serbians think twice
>    before deciding that they wanted that land.  A couple thousand
>    professionally trained and armed troops are a lot more of a deterrent
>    than farmers with hunting rifles.

If a couple of thousand troops would have deterred them, why are the
UN folks claiming that it would take a million to hold some supply
lines?

What would those couple of thousand troops do?  They can't even track
down a couple of hundred irregulars.

>>>    That thinking brought the Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish
>>>   Revolution, which, by the way, was Hitler's  (and Mussolini's)
>>>   test of the rest of the world's resolve to oppose him.  Need I say
>>>   what happened after that?
>>
>>No, you need to explain how that's relevant.  (I know a dancing,
>>vegetarian, dog-loving German male with a mustache, but I'm not well
>>placed for the start of a fourth reich.)  Who's playing Germany and do
>>they get Italy this time?
>
>       I was just trying to say that the volunteer force in the Spanish
>     Revolution really didn't help out the cause (keeping Franco out
>     of power).

You were also claiming that it had some relevance to the current
situation.  If it is irrelevant....

>I'm not trying to create another Hitler (unlike GHWB)

Ah, so it isn't supposed to be irrelevant (unlike the "I was just").
Let's try again.  Who's playing Germany this time and which side gets
Italy?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: homosexuality
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:13:25 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Missy P 2 B writes of a ridiculous hypothetical situation, including:
>    My children are quite fond of my lover, and at some point they also
> begin to have sex with this person (oh, what the heck--let's throw in
> the dog, the cat, a few gerbils, and some power tools while we are at
> it.)
And then concludes:
>   No.  What I was doing was ignoring that what I was doing was BAD,
> regardless of whether there was a direct, perciptible harm involved or
> NOT.  Because I had NO MORAL VALUES.  And, to be perfectly frank, I
> deserved *exactly* what I got.
> 
> --Missy P 2 B

Well apart from the sheer depth of imagination invloved in creating this
bizarre, hypothetical tale, I would say that the problem was not what sort of
power tools you chose to have sex with, Missy, but rather simply that it was a
dysfunctional family with some problems with communication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All acts of love and pleasure are My Rituals.         |        Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: It's always the money
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:54:19 GMT

It *isn't* always the money.  The reason I oppose the National Endowment
for the Arts has very little to do with how much the dang thing costs.
I oppose the National Endowment for the Arts because I think that governmental
action in the realm of fundamental IDEAS is generally dangerous. 

--Jimbo

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Re: Is Christianity immoral? (was: Is homosexuality immoral?)
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:15:26 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92091012123751@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
> KAT:
> 
> You are "pro-choice" regarding gay rights?  So people can "choose"
> to be gay?
> 
> Then it is behavior and not an unchangeable condition.  Why, then,
> shall it be priviliged over other forms of behavioral choice?

You mean like religion or political affiliation, Kerry?  This country was
founded so people could make behavioral choices without fear of oppression.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:41:57 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

>Jobs can't survive unless they produce more than they cost.  Strike
>rules can't change that.  The choice isn't between a pay-cut and
>paradise, it is between a pay-cut and a layoff.
>
>        when you say this, are you including the extravagent saleries
>        of the CE's and other bigshots into the cost of the job,

Either they pay their way, or they're out on the street too.

It isn't that tough to start a biz in the US.  If you whine about biz
practices that are inefficient, but are unwilling to risk your money
to prove it (to the benefit of all), then we know how much faith you
have in your beliefs.  Why should we have any more?


>>        it would be an interesting excercise to replace the word "guns"
>>        with the word "drugs" in the above sentence.
>
>That exercise shows that the Demos are at least as clueless as the
>Repubs.
>
>        yer missing the point.

I'm merely pointing out that the point is more general.  We had a
"proof" that the Repubs were clueless on one issue.  Someone suggested
that it applied to another issue; I showed that the argument applied
to the Demos as well.

>>        when was the last time you bought art supplies?
>
>The supplies for my art are much more expensive than those for traditional
>fine arts.  Does that mean I'm owed a subsidy?
>
>        may i ask what your art is?

No.

>       the point of my statement was that often artwork sells at prices lower
>       or equal to the price of the materials that are used to produce it.

So?  That doesn't mean that it is worth subsidizing, just that it costs
more than people think it is worth.

>replacing them such a horrible thing?
>
>        replacing them isn't a horrible thing.  stripping away half their
>        students and half their funds and leaving the rest to rot is.

Let me make sure I've got this right.  brni thinks that improving the
lot of half the kids is a bad idea because it doesn't improve the lot
of ALL the kids.  Given a choice between letting them ALL rot and
letting only half of them rot, brni choses ALL.  That's an interesting
value system.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:51:56 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

From:         TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET

> Martin:  So the government should not be in the business of
> stopping murder then--after all, committing murder is immoral,
> and, according to you, the state shouldn't legislate morality.
> The way I see it, when you live amongst a society, you are bound
> by the moral rules of that society.  The only "right" I can really
> say you have is the right to be a participating member of the
> society that you live in.  If you don't like the moral rules of
> the society that you live in, move somewhere else.

Good answer.  So if you want to make abortion and homosexuality
illegal, if you want to make murderers out of people
who are raped and seek abortion, make sodomy punishable,
keep homosexuals out of schools and for that matter out
of the country and bring in prayer, if you want to mix
politics and religion, teach the word of God in (public) schools,
if you want to make flag burning illegal, stop people who do not
support "our" troops, etc., I have a perfect place for you.
You can go Iran.  I'll even arrange for a passport for you.

> -Travis

--KAT
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: a real question about international affairs...
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:57:27 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92091411274595@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, KSTE@PURCCVM.B
ITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:
>Tim:
>
>I do not know the race of the troops, but I do know this.  The incident
>occurred when the ANC crowd in question marched *past* the army, with
>the *express intent* of overthrowing the military government of the
>homeland.
>
>I'm not saying that it was the right thing to do to fire on the
>demonstrators.  I'm only pointing out that being fired on in this
>situation was inevitable, and that the ANC knew it.
>
>Let me put it this way:  what *could* the government of the homeland
>have done at that point when it was clear that the ANC was not going
>to stop at the border?  Would *you* have believed them to be unarmed,
>given that they *said* they were going to overthrow the government?
>
>Marching unarmed into someone else's governed territory and telling
>them you intend to overthrow the government appears to be an entirely
>irrational act--and no government deals well with irrational actors.
>
>--Missy P 2 B
>
   Missy
   Acxcording to that analogy, when 'negros' marched in the United States in
   the 60's to overthrow racial prejudice against themselves, they should have
   been shot at. The demonstation put on by the ANC was to be controlled and
   peaceful. This was prior to the marchers being shot at and many being
   killed.
   gpn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:54:42 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates

FYI:       Prime Rates in Sweden over the past week:

           For long period about 14%
           Beginning of this week about 25%
           Wednesday *** 75% ***.

I am NOT kidding!

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:42:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: a real question about international affairs...

I think that soon you will be reading some interesting stuff in the papers,
or on TV or if you're lucky shortwave.

First off all, the homelands are black, and the leaders are black, but they
were created by the white South African government, and if you look carefully
you will find behind the black leaders whites who hold the real power.  This
includes the security forces, of course, and they talk about white officers,
advisers, etc.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the same people
who are connected to the political murders in South Africa proper are
connected to this.

Second of all, the Beeb (or was it Radio France, I forget and my tape recorder
doesn't work so I can't check) carried a story that said that it was looking
more and more like the South African security people deliberately instigated
the massacre.  They had all the exits from the meeting blocked off, but the
place where there was a hole in the fence was not blocked off.  Instead, there
were sharpshooters placed around it, under cover.  They further said that the
South African police, the local police, and various officials of different
types were in radio contact with one another throughout the episode and
knew exactly what was going on.

There will be more.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:48:29 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: who do you trust

>     Which kinda makes me wonder -- why tobacco and not marijuana?
>  I've heard interesting theories on the history of the laws against
>  marijuana, one of which involved lobbying by DuPont because they
>  wanted to sell their wood-pulp paper process, which was in competition
>  with a hemp process.  So, they just decided to push to make the
>  competition iillegal.

I've heard that. I kind of believe it. I can get you the address to
order _The Emperor Wears No Clothes_, which is the "bible" for hemp
legalization activists, but the DuPont theory really hits home, exp.
when you consider that the Constitution was written on hemp paper.

>        --G. Racz

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
 Legalize it!
     --Peter Tosh, RIP
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 13:31:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

missy:

for an interesting and amusing look at the culture (if you can call
it that) that spawned this country, read John Barth's _The Sot-Weed
Factor_.  it is great fun, and i had lots of fun playing with the
language.

i think that a bill of responsibilities would be very short:

"No person shall infringe or abridge the Rights of any other person."

brni
"elected to power men suspend self interest
the right to get rich is in the constitution
a balance of power will protect our interests"
                                gang of four
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:51:39 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: let's rephrase the question
              8 Sep 1992 20:24:10 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Hmm.

Let's try "to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves *and our posterity*.  Posterity requires a
male/female union for the production of offspring, in which the state
has a long-term survival interest.  So, to encourage this activity,
and to make it as streamlined as possible, we provide incentives to
marriage and the bearing of children.

Besides which, this privileging of marriage is a custom we share with
most societies.  Important rites of passage (such as marriage--the
lifetime commitment of two individuals from different families to an
entirely new family, for the purpose of creating more families down
the line) are always marked by greater benefits and responsibilities.

What seems to be occurring now, in this society, is that increasing
numbers of people have lost interest in continuing the line, but
are wild about the idea of having sex.  Somehow we have begun to
believe that marriage is somehow about having sex, rather than
contributing to the continuation of society.  And now we've decided
that sex is too important to be confined to marriage, and that families
aren't important enough to preserve.  So we've made it easier to get
out of marriage, easier to have sex, and harder to find anyone in this
society with a clue as to what a "long-term commitment" might mean.

Plus which, we've passed all these wonderful ideas on to the few
children we actually managed to have (while simply choosing to
dispose of the other 2/3 of them), and now *they* don't want to
stick around *our* families either (ingrates.)  Not that it matters
much, since we managed to educate them amazingly well about only
2 things:  sex and abortion.  They don't know enough about anything
else to contribute much to mom and dad (or dad and dad, or mom and
mom, or dad and mom and their friend Lassie) and the family, and they
aren't really all that fond of them anyway.

Boy, are we gonna be in good shape when we get old, huh?  Might as
well put that reservation in now at Dr. Jack's Eternal Retreat.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU