HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:54:41 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A correction to Andy on the Environment
Comments: To: KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET

>Dave:

>No, you're not paranoid.  It's all about Agribidness.  (See Marty
>Jezer's THE DARK AGES.)

Well, first, I *am* paranoid. Probably not to a degree where it
causes problems, but I am paranoid, especially when I drive.
Ask rufus if I am paranoid. (I know what he'd say. I *KNOW* he's
out to get me B)

but anyway, thanks for the note and the biblio.  Btw, I've been trying
to guess what you look like. From my experience, the mental picture
of the people you flame everyday is vastly different from the reality.
For example, I would have never guessed the way o'andy looked, as
he could tell you. So, if you could give a short hint, I'd appreciate
it. To be fair...

I'm about 6'2", 220 or so lbs, with short balding hair, longish in
back (jobsearch haircut), 22yo with three earring holes (although
I only wear one most of the time) and glasses (20-300 plus astigmatism-
happy happy joy joy) and a large collection of fairly radical t shirts
(a chunk of them from the "Signals" and "Wireless" catalogs, actually)
No tattoos, few scars (just a trach scar - a volcano tried to kill
me once) and the crystal normally stays under my shirt B)

>--Missy P 2 B

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
I don't like being called an expert.
Because "x" is an unknown quantity...
and a "spurt" is only a drip under pressure.
              --Elliott C. (Bim) Mitchell, II
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:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:30:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Morality = naviete?

In article <tfilt317650@drew.edu>, Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes
   :
> Hi:
>
Greetings and saluations

> Joe says something more or less along the lines of why should we have
> prayer in schools if we aren't pursuing a moral foreign policy?

I mentioned this in passing, but it is an important thing to think
about.  What confuses me is that you below [most deleted] appear to
see much good in pursuing a "moral" foreign policy, but you see it as
too naive in the cruel world we have.  This is confusing since your
last post on the subject rejected such a moral policy (i.e. giving
money to Bosnia) as not our job, not because we live in a cruel cruel
world.  Why was you so abrupt rejecting G. Racz concern for kindness
if you agreed with it in principle, but just didn't think it was practical?

> to the larger community.  If we were to pursue a Christian (truly
> Christian) foreign policy, we would empty the treasury to send
> humanitarian aid (like the widow at the poor box), without concern
> for whether that would leave us anything with which to feed ourselves
> (not to mention funding the arts, building nifty new government
> buildings, paying for education, or balancing the budget).

this use of hyperbole is rather an absurd bunch of rhetoric.
Give me a break.  At issue here isn't the desire to become a country
of brothers and nuns that use all our money for the common good of
civilization.  The issue is some concern for humanity and those who
suffer in the world ex. concern for people starving in Somalia, not
just saying hell why bother with a bunch of warring tribes.  The issue
also in Bosnia is more than humanitarian as I tried to note.

[more hyperbole deleted]

>   If we choose to be a moral nation in the international realm, we
> choose to relinquish our political and economic might for something
> far more valuable.  For what doth it profit a man that he should gain
> the whole world and lose his soul?
>   In this world, there aren't many who would opt for the soul of a
> nation.  Too bad.  Cause, to be frank, the world ain't worth it.
>
> --Missy P 2 B
>
ah a religious cynic.  the problem is to quote Hobbes, the world of
nature is nasty brutish and short, so one would think one would try to
fight it keeping in mind that one is not striving toward Utopia, just a
better world.  I guess I'm just another dreamy idealist who actually
believes in all those ideals that supposely is what makes this country
better than others.

            -Joe
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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:29:42 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy:
>Yup, and who's to blame for that?  Hunters will happily pay.  Ivory
>buyers arguably don't care who gets the money, so the environmental
>activist approach pays poachers, who don't have any long term
>interest, and not elephant farmers, who do.

I don't think I understand.  It still looks to me like making ivory "legal"
won't solve the problem (in and of itself) unless there's a "match" between
sustainable supply and demand.

>>white-tailed deer in CA, passenger pigeons, Stellars sea cow, fossil fuels,
>
>White-tailed deer populations in CA are determined by water (we're
>still in drought) and habitat size (hunters increase it while the rest
>of it decrease it).  Their eventual fate will be determined by who
>wins the water wars.  If the cities do, the deer are gone, but
>nation-wide, there are more white-tails now than there were 20 years
>ago, let alone than there were 200 years ago.

Um, white-tailed deer were hunted to extinction in CA quite some time ago.
Y'all have mule deer -- a different species.  The point being that,
presumably, market hunters (I'm pretty sure that's who was hunting them,
but could be wrong) had  a long-term interest in maintaining the
populations.  But they went for the short-term gain.  The same thing almost
happened with beaver, river otters, sea otters, etc.  Again, the point is
that "market forces" alone don't ensure long-term maintenance of a resource
base.

>It's rather simple actually.  You can have lots of money to protect
>elephants, or you can have a little.  If money matters and elephants
>are worth keeping around, the choice is obvious.  Like I wrote,
>environmental activists are more interested in purity than elephants.

I agree that limited hunting of elephants can potentially generate revenues
for increased protection.  And *maybe* we can generate enough money for
protection to deter poachers -- to the point where illegal ivory is more
expensive than legal ivory.  Is that what you're getting at?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:24:18 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      God's Country

Quote from Buchanan's speech at GOP National Convention:

>Friends, this is radical feminism.  The agenda that Clinton & Clinton
>would impose on America -- abortion-on-demand, a litmus test for the
>Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious
>schools, women in combat units -- that's change, all right.  That's not
>the kind of change America needs.  It's not the kind of change America
>wants.  And it is not the kind of change we can abide in a nation that
>we still call God's country.

What I want to point out here is the last sentence.

This could exerpt and particularly that last line could easily
have come from a speech at a meeting of the Aryan Nation or
any other neo-Nazi group in the country.

In re-reading Buchanan's speech, I don't really see how different
his rhetoric is any different from a neo-Nazi leader.  I originally
took issue with some of my friends who called Buchanan, "David Duke
in a suit," but no longer feel that I can.

The above line has a very chilling meaning to me.  Last year,
our theatre presented a play title, _God's Country_, which was
written from real documents, speeches and court records surrounding
the Alan Berg(I think this is the correct name) murder.  "God's Country"
was that which these neo-Nazis were so intent on protecting.

They were raising warrior children, well-trained in subservice and
secretive tactics.

It was one of the scariest productions that I'd ever seen.

j.b.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:02:16 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

JB:

I think we have all strayed from the real question involved with
vouchers.  The question ought not to be whether public education is
better than private.  Rather, the question that educational choice
advocates and theorists ask is why there should not be a way for
parents to send their children to whichever school is best for the
child--as Bush puts it, "public, private, or religious."

Is there a good reason not to encourage such competition?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:30:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

I think that parts of the Bible were written by Jews, and in any case
many of us think that perhaps it's the Christians who should convert.
Of course, we don't write them out of the World To Come in the event that
they don't.

                                             Chris Morrison
                                             CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
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:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:42:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 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
>
>So you're going to go enlist today into the military and perform your
>moral & civic duty and promise to be on the front line when we send
>troops over there?

     If you'll recall the content of the post that Gilbert was responding
   to, you would note that I stated plainly that 1) Intervention a year
   ago could have prevented ALL deaths (or at least the vast majority)
   and 2) It's too late for intervention to do much good.

         --G. Racz
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 17:33:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject: RE: response to Brni

>Tyrone--who said anything about business controlling your beliefs?
>They can't throw you in jail--all they can do is fire you.  Don't
>you think if I put my hard-earned money into owning a business
>that I should be able to hire and fire whom I wish?

    So they can't throw you in jail, but they can make sure you
  starve to death for your beliefs.

-
>Travis


 --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:55:08 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> I have been thinking about your "hostage" question, and I have to say
> that I am not sure what the answer is.  If they were to ask me if
> I were a Christian, I would have to say yes, no matter the cost, since
> to do otherwise is a denial of my Lord.  I would like to believe that
> I would admit to being an American, but as it is not my primary
> allegience, I am not comfortable saying that I would certainly do
> so in a situation of utmost danger.

> In essence, admitting my citizenship would be the right thing to do,
> but I am not certain I could overcome the temptation to do otherwise.

But Missy, lying is with respect to falsifying a truth not how
much that truth is revered by you.  Look, you might be much more
proud about your being Christian than being American but your being
American and Christian are EQUALLY factual.

Even if I agree with your premise here, your argument is really
helping my side more than yours.  So you are saying that the "badness"
of your lying is dependent on what you are lying about.  Fine
with me.  Add to that also how severe would be the consequences and
we are in complete agreement.

Now, I have the utmost respect for you not willing to lie about
your being Christian.  However, if you say it is also "bad" for
others to lie in a similar situation is unacceptable to me.

How come you distinguish between murder and killing but won't
distinguish between lying to hurt and lying for other (maybe
good) purposes?

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:19:22 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

JB:

I think your dividing line for morality is a bit specious.  The Middle
Ages?  Why?  The Judeo-Christian ethic which we were discussing long
predates that, and I would have to say we are also most likely "too
far removed" from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the colonial
period, and the industrial revolution, as well.  To be frank, we
are *very* far removed today from 98% of the rest of human history.
Does that mean we pretend it has no relevance?

The Judeo-Christian ethic has endured.  Some would argue that this
is so because it is the Word of God.  But many others would merely
concede that it is so because it is the most *sensible* way in which
human behavior can be ordered.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:43:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

I can believe that homosexuality is moral or immoral depending on which
logical route I take in deciding, and by accepting or rejecting different
propositions I can reach different conclusions.  If I believe that two
different propositions are logical and morally acceptable, I can accept
two different moral positions which result from those propositions.  Of
course, this will leave me in a moral dilemna, and eventually circumstances
will force me to decide which one I think is correct.  It is important
for me to accept that someone else may have reached a different conclusion.
Now suppose someone reaches a different conclusion and says that bestiality
and cannibalism are all right?  This is a reasonable question.  But I think
it is desirable to allow for as much room for diversity and individual
growth as possible.  After all, when you decide that people are wrong or
evil, what do you do with them?  If they aren's an actual threat, they should
be left alone and given common consideration.  Common consideration is what
gay rights is all about.  Nobody has to love these people.  Just treat them
decently, let them work for a living and have a place to live like
everybody else.  (sorry for the rambling).

                                  Chris Morrison
                                  CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:15:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: WARNING: theological post

kai asked:

        "Does God have a penis?  If so, how big is it?"

well, since the bible is literally true, and God is refered to as
"the Father" and as "He," God is male and hence has a penis (since
a male without a penis is an imperfect male).

furthermore, since the attributes of God are perfect and infinite,
God's penis is both perfect and infinite.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:13:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: New York Senate Race

Rick:

Thanks for a really wonderful and well-written message.

                               Chris Morrison
                               CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:53:00 CST
From:         POHENRY@STMARYTX.BITNET
Subject:      who loves you baby?

A while ago an argument (discussion?) appeared on this list around the
question of whether or not capitalism/socialism was anti-family (values?).
I think one thing that was missing from the discussion was the assumption that
under capitalism or, for that matter, a ,ixed system primarily market driven
the job, production, appears to be the focus of one's life.  Consequently,
we never make opportunities for ourselves close to the family focus we always
go to where the opportunities exist. It appears that this mitigates against
maintenance of family stability.  What would a system be which was inverted
where the market, although of priniciple importance, did not dictate one's
lifestyle.  If we gave favor to families over the job would this make for
stronger family structures?  Would we have need of "required family leave
laws?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:49:05 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1% Tax Cut

>Who said I am for Clinton?  At any rate, Clinton says he wants
>to increase taxes on the rich and either not touch or decrease
>taxes on the middle class (that is me).  Now it seems that you
>are implying that Clinton is lying.

I don't know about MacPhil, but we can do the arithmetic and see if
Clinton's plan "pencils out"; if it doesn't, he's either lying or
stupid.  He's proposed getting 2-5% more from the top 2%.  Taking 5%
more from the top 4% raises about $20B (assuming they don't react to
their increased taxes).  Clinton has also proposed various savings
from defense spending.  We can ignore the "waste" savings because
they're mainly democrat pork and he's not going to have any more
effect on them than Bush did.

Then we look at the new spending.  To the extent that it exceeds
the transfer from defense, it has to come from somewhere.  The
first $20B comes from taxing the rich, but then what?

I note that we've tried the Clinton plan; it didn't work as he
predicts.  (We've tried "tax and invest" and we've tried specifically
targetting tax preferences.)  Bush's failures don't change this.

>He thought abortion was murder but now he thinks its the
>woman's choice.

And now we have KAT lying again.  If KAT can't make an anti-Bush
case without misrepresenting Bush....

-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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:27:19 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Help! ! !

JB:

Ask Hirsch how he scores on his own tests.

--Missy P 2 B
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:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:49:25 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Kai:
>A lot of perfectly legal things can be said to have some sort of detrimental
>effect--shouldn't the important question be, if there is a detrimental effect,
>does the prohibition of prostitution produce a clearly preferable effect to
>simply regulating it (considering the health risks, tax revenues, etc.)?

Good point.
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:50:42 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

Kerry:

> Oh, yeah.  One more thing.  Children who attend private schools
> average 100 points higher on the SATs than those who attend public
> schools.  And they do so at 1/3 the cost on a per-pupil basis.

> --Missy P 2 B

But part of that (maybe the major part of it) is because
they start with a better batch of students not that they
do a better job with them.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 12:57:00 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      A comment to Brni's post on "a bill of responsibilities" ...

Date: 06 Sep 1992 13:31:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Rights, and other comments ...

(first paragraph and salutation deleted)

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

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

>brni

This is part of what I was trying to articulate the other day. I
won't abridge the religious right's desire to "enforce" morality as
long as it doesn't become law. I expect that ilk to respect that I
won't try to make MY morality law either. I think we could have
considerably less law, and lawyers, and still function well as a
society. I think "special law" for children is necessary. I think
some level of national defense is necessary, though I've contended
for two decades that we could have 30-40% of our current level of
military and armament, and still be the probable dominant force in
most conflicts, if not all. If we needed more, mothball some of what
we have already. But, "Osprey," SDI, B-2, and 30% of our nuclear
arsenal could go, and so could 60% of our overseas bases, and we
STILL would be over-armed.

We *COULD* abolish 60% of the laws on the books, keep the Bill of
Rights, adopt a code like Brni suggests, and I believe our society
would function just fine. Get the cops to worry less about traffic
(save for mishaps), bedroom and personal behavior (that follows
Brni's premise), and more on those who feel killing and robbing is a
legitimate way of life. I live in a city with 1600 police, and the
highest murder rate in the city's history. Yet, 35% of our police
force is on traffic duty of one kind or another, including some whose
sole job is to chase speeders and illegal left turners. 20% more are
JUST chasing drugs, along with fixed contingents of Federal police
doing that.  What is the police/political solution? Raise taxes and
hire more police!

We are the most litagous nation in the world, and we are amongst the
most law conscious and law-plagued of modern day societies. Sometimes
more isn't better. I like our constitution, I think Brni's idea is
sound, and could fit next to or with that guiding document quite
well.  VMS

(Quote deleted)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU