HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values" (II) continued
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:00:10 GMT

The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values" (II) continued


  Percentage of infants born at low birth weight, 1980-88:

                LOW BIRTH                  LOW BIRTH
COUNTRY            WEIGHT(46)   COUNTRY        WEIGHT

United States         7         Egypt             5
United Kingdom        7         France            5
Australia             6         Hong Kong         5
Austna                6         Iran              5
Bulgaria              6         Japan             5
Canada                6         Jordan            5
Czechoslovakia        6         New Zealand       5
Denmark               6         Portugal          5
Germany (unified)     6         Switzerland       5
Greece                6         Finland           4
Romania               6         Ireland           4
Saudi Arabia          6         Norway            4
USSR                  6         Sweden            4
Belgium               5         Spain

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: UNICEF, The State of the World's Children 1991 (New York Oxford
University Press 1991). p. 104,
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From pp 18-19 of: 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New    
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.   

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.   
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2  
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.   
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The   
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But   
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."   

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations   




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:35:09 GMT

In article <xzzdrr7@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
>
>By the way, a woman can't become infertile AND have multiple miscarriages un-
>less all the fetuses are surgically implanted.  An infertile woman fails to
>produce ova and can't get pregnant at all, let alone miscarry.  Subsequent
>infertility OR multiple miscarriages is a risk of Ceasarian sections, a com-
>mon method of childbirth, and are risks not by any means limited to abortions.

I'm not sure about the definition of infertility you use. I have had
multiple very early miscarriages, and have been told that I am infertile.
Mine may be related to either chronic UTI or mutations; I haven't followed
up on the problem.

Any method of childbirth can cause secondary infertility and or 
subsequent miscarriages. A friend of mine has a miscarriage problem
due to an improperly healed lacerated cervix.
 

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:47:10 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

Matt Austern writes
> I'm afraid the rights of the cable companies, before this bill passed,
> included the right to be an unregulated monopoly---to set any rates
> they wanted, and any level of service, without fear of competition.
> 
> To be honest, I don't know which would have been better: regulating
> the monopoly (as Congress chose), or just taking steps to ensure
> competition.  I don't believe in the ideology that unregulated
> free-market competition will always produce the optimal result, but in
> many cases it is better than trying to regulate the market.  Maybe
> this is one of those cases, maybe not; I don't pretend to have thought
> about cable TV enough to have a firm opinion.
> 
> One thing is clear to me, though, and that is that either regulation
> or competition is far better than the unregulated monopoly that we
> used to have, and that Bush wanted to keep.  Let's be clear about
> this: Bush doesn't stand for free-market capitalism, he just stands
> for government handouts to the rich.
> --
> Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
> (510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a  
movement, a
> austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have  
any
> matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the  
problem!

NO ONE, seems to have pointed out the point of deregulation in the first  
place.  It was to encourage the industry to wire as much of the country as  
quickly as possible as was economically feasible(some areas will always be  
better served Sattelite dishes because of low density), by allowing them  
to recoup their capital investment quickly without local government rate  
setting.  That goal has been accomplished.  Over two-thirds of the  
households in the United States now have cable (not all of them subscribe  
ofcourse), and in order to keep the large cable conglemerates (can you say  
Time Warner?) from going beyond recovering their capital cost, its time to  
give states and localities the right to regulate the rates, just like they  
do with telephone, gas, and electric service.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:58:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <qnksiqc@zola.esd.sgi.com>, erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) writes...
> 
>In article <5OCT199218410225@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu writes:
>> Perot has been in the media longer than the LP's been around.
> 
>Are you certain of that?  The first I'd ever heard of Perot was the
>hostage thing.
> 
>-- Erik

According to the Current Biography article from 1971, Perot made
his fortune '68 ($200M) and parlayed it up to a billion by '70.
His philathropic work hits the press about the same time, and
the POW work dates from '69.

If the LP predates this, I'm getting fuzzy. It has been 10 years
since I was a libertarian, so maybe. Of course Rand's work is
much earlier, but the point is the LP, ie. the party itself.

-- Stephen Tice  "If you want free talk-radio air time, call
                  Glen Mitchell (host) at 1-800-688-5753,
                  the program is `Texas-USA' and it covers
                  37 states. Times: 9 - midnite (later I think)."

		  GM is a very fair host if you're courteous.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:55:23 GMT

(Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>(Mike Godwin) writes:

>> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>>> Let's see ... Mr. Frank is, what?  A _LAW_ student (if I'm not

>> It is a common lapse in logic to suppose that questioning the source
>> of an argument is just as good as questioning the argument's validity.

>Would a lawyer who is engaged in trial work ever attempt to discredit
>testimony by questioning the integrity of the one who gave it?  Naw
>... wouldn't happen.  Pshaw!

When did this newsgroup become a trial?  Lawyers don't question integrity
(and courteous individuals rarely do so in public, without good cause)
during trials, they question credibility.  Mr. Frank offerred some
analysis, not factual assertions, so credibility is irrelevant.  It would
be similar to, say, questioning the logic of someone's viewpoint because
that person was in any way dependent on government funds...
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		E-mail to srm@mw.sbi.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Ah, the truth is out!  (was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:41:18 GMT

In article <Bv51tK.B93@phage.cshl.org> pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>i dont thing sex need a detergent. if God had wanted sex to
            ^         ^
ooops, sorry, i am coming down with a cold, so the above
sentence is phonetically correct but otherwise broken.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
-- love that Circle K
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Oct 15th, 1932
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:17:14 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <BvMrtI.DGG@agora.rain.com>, robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.170945.13361@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>        In the current FORBES (60 years ago today...), there is a passage
>>>commenting on the errors of the pro-protectionist movement, and how
>>>Smoot-Hawley had reduced trade to foreign nations dramatically.
>>>
>>>	Let's all fax that to Clinton and Gore.
>>
>>According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton supports free trade.  What
>>would be the point of faxing the above to him?
>>
>>Are you confusing free trade with NAFTA, by any chance? 
> 
>   Clinton announced today that he finally supports NAFTA,
> although he still has "reservations".

	Clinton has been tap-dancing around NAFTA for months.  He has,
evidently, learned a trick from Bush/Quayle.  While Clinton makes efforts to
sound mainstream, the Veep (candidate) sends up trial balloons of different
viewpoints to see how the public/media reacts.  If there is a firestorm, the
positions are merely "a misunderstanding" between the two.  Otherwise, Clinton
will adopt them.

	I've heard enough protectionist/xenophobia out of Gore to convince me
that the ticket is tariff oriented.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,logic.bizarre
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Clinton doesn't understand business (was: A SAD JOKE!)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:45:26 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep30.222441.16669@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.174029.2320@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.204836.16140@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep29.115932.15876@njitgw.njit.edu> lxf8351@hertz.njit.edu (lawrence finkel cis stnt) writes:

>>>>Having ran a business myself (an Air conditioning contracting firm, 
>>>>for 8 years ) I know what its like to lose sleep, worrying about wether I 
>>>>could get enough work to keep my employees busy & keep food on their tables. 
>>>>Neither Clinton nor Gore have ever had the need to meet a payroll, pay
>>>>for office space, provide workers compensation insurance, etc. I believe
>>>>that,before anyone attempts to meddle with the business structure of America,
>>>>they should at very least have some real world experiance.

>>>Has Bush done what you've done, build a business more or less from scratch?  
>>Nope.  So what?  That wasn't the point.

>>>Sure, he's dabbled in the private economy, but he was staked
>>>with $300,000 from his father (around $1.5M in today's dollars).

>>Dabbled?  I don't call making millions dabbling.

>There are an awful lot of people who could make millions of dollars when
>they STARTED with millions of dollars.

Read the post, Dave.  He started with $300,000.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49098 ca.politics:8358 alt.politics.homosexuality:6328
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:16:48 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

This Associated Press report should be of interest:

DENVER (AP)---A child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a
family member than a homosexual, a new study shows.

"Our data would suggest that families really need help," said Dr. Tom
Roesler of Denver, ho conducted the study with his wife, Dr. Carol Jenny.
"Most child abuse is committed within families."

The study of child molestation cases at Children's hospital indicates most
molesters are simply adults who prefer sex with children.

"They don't discriminate between boys and girls," said Roesler, a child
psychiatrist with National Jewish Hospital. "They like little children,
and they'll take whatever they can get."

The question of homosexual molesters has become a political issue this fall
in the debate over Amendment 2, a proposal which would ban civil rights
protection for gays.

The amendment is sponsored by Colorado for Family Values, a Colorado Springs
group that believes gays are a danger to society.

Campaign literature distributed by the group states that gays commit up to
one half of all child molestations. The figures come from Paul Cameron, a
discredited Lincoln, Nebr. psychologist and self-described sexuality
researcher who represents Colorado for Family Values during panel discussions.

Roesler said he and his wife, who is an associate pediatrics professor at the
University of Colorado, decided to look into the child molestation issue
because of the debate over Amendment 2.

The doctors reviewed every case of suspected child molestation at Children's
Hospital from July 1, 1991, to June 30. THEIR FINDINGS REVEALED ONE OF THE
387 CASES LIKELY INVOLVED A GAY PERPETRATOR [emphasis mine].    ***

During their research, they eliminated cases of children whose medical
conditions mimicked abuse, babies who couldn't name perpetrators and
children who had been molested by other youngsters. That left 265 children
who accused adults of sexual abuse.

The doctors said boys and girls alike overwhelmingly said they were abused
by heterosexual men who were family members. All but eight of the 219 girls
accused men, 166 of whom were family members.

Thirty named family friends; eight, school personnel; and seven, strangers,
the study showed.

Most boys were also molested by heterosexual family members, the study showed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.elections
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the [Pork-Party]
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:18:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes...
>|> Eric Sieferman) writes:
>|> >

>|> >To me, the deficit is just not that much of a problem.
>|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
> 
>If there was anything that I thought conservatives and liberals,
>Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and those misguided
>that support that Texas guy, and old and young, etc. was that
>this is that much of a problem.  We may not agree with how to 
>deal with it, but we all know it is a growing millstone
>around our neck and the necks of our children.
> 
>On the other hand, maybe the country should just declare bankruptcy,
>cancel out the debt, or pay it off at 10 cents on the dollar,
>and go on with life as before.

Or since 1/3 of US land is federally owned, half of that could be
parcelled up and deeded over to the institutions which by in large
hold the government issues that make up the debt -- as payment in 
full. They'll figure out how to resell it at a profit, or make
use of it. And the economic stimulus will boost us out of our plunge
into debt. 

I reckon, that's what they want anyway -- real wealth (ie land) vs. 
junk debt. Quite a scam, "Give us your land or we Shoot the economy." 

And the taxpayers won't be paying hard-earned income for which there
is no return. 

-- Stephen

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49501 talk.abortion:40539 alt.activism.d:3538
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:45:58 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> But when I talk to a pro-choice advocate, abortion seems to be the only
|> choice they want to discuss.  Here's a good choice for couples: abstinence
|> until they are fully ready for children.  I mean, in all the arguements that
|> concept always gets lost.  And some folks think you just beamed down from a UFO
|> when you bring it up.
|> 
Actually, I doubt that any civilization advanced enough to build a UFO would
ignore the social and pleasurable aspecs of intercourse.  Sex is part of the
ongoing relationship between two people.  Without it, relationships wouldn't
happen and last over time.  Who would care if they did?

|> Simon

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: martin@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Tracy Martin)
Subject: debates
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin.
Distribution: talk
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:11:24 GMT


Both Bush and Clinton have invited Perot to participate in the Debates, if he
declares that he is a candidate. Have they extended this same invitation to 
the Liberatarian candidate? Isn't he also on the ballet in all 50 states?

--
=================================================================================
          The opinions expressed herein are strictly my own 
                and are subject to change at any time, without prior notice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy C Martin                     |
Applied Research Labs              |               REALITY
University of Texas at Austin      |          keeps shattering my   
Austin Texas 78758                 |          Rose-Tinted Glasses

==================================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48808 alt.politics.bush:7333 alt.politics.clinton:7976 alt.politics.elections:14776 talk.abortion:39670 junk:38215 alt.rush-limbaugh:6292
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,junk,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:12:20 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Sep30.155519.13881@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM () writes:
>
>In article <oem7ddi00WB51DRh8G@andrew.cmu.edu>, ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>>Path: iscnvx!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!stanford.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ag1v+

>>This is a common arguement. Why is it that often people forget the 
>>'very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion?

Studies have always shown that the risk of an abortion, physically and
emotionally, is far lower for women than the risks of pregnancy, labor
and delivery.
 
>>Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women
>>(especially young women) to become infertile and have multiple mis-
>>carraiges (sp?) in later life. Why is it that many pro-choicers
>>argue for sex education, but education about abortions risks isn't
>>considered as important?  

Sorry, guy, but most pro-choicers do inform people of the risks. The risk
of secondary infertility is greater following labor and delivery than
it is following legal abortion. The general health risk is far lower in
legal abortion than it is in pregnancy, labor and delivery. To claim
the health risks of abortion to women as a reason for outlawing abortion
if bogus; if any alternative were to be outlawed on such a basis, it would
be childbirth.
 
>The point about "very real physical and emotional risks of' abortion"
>was very well said Andrea.  In the 70's I can remember planned parenthood
>trying to sell the point that Pro-Choice was simply an educational matter
>about trying to avoid conception via the pill, IUD's... not about abortion.
>What Pro-Choice is practicing now is "Limited Choice" without full discloser
>of all the choices.

What does Planned Parenthood's stance in the 1970s have to do with an
argument regarding legal abortion? By that stance we can take the
Mormon Church's 1970s stance that abortion of mixed race babies was OK
and drag it in here. Both are irrelevant. Last time I checked, Planned
Parenthood wasn't my religion. :-)


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSS PEROT!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:13:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.223045.10058@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <19q0n6INNvg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Thomas Hill) writes:
>
>|>   Just like to encourage everybody to show their support for Ross Perot
>|>for president. Change your sig file, put a sign in your car window, and
>|>spread the word about this decent man and his realistic plan to move this
>|>country forward.
>
>O.K. willco.
>
>---
>Phill Hallam-Baker
>
>Don't vote for Ross, hes a liar a quiter and a crook.

Obliging to a previous post involving a Jesse Jackson bumper sticker....

We can make "Run, Ross, Run" bumper stickers, and put them on
the front bumper.



--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush