HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:00:15 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Guns, Freud, and Psychology

>Hang on to your hats, folks, this one's a corker. Andy Freeman
>actually said:
> "Freud said that gun/ weapons FEAR was associated with psychological
>problems, that such fear was manifested in attempts to ban and control
>said weapons of others."

And Andy was right.  Freud didn't have much to say about guns, but
what he did have to say was wrt neurotic fear of them.  For example
"The representation of the penis of a weapon ... is familiar to us
from the anxiety dreams of abstinent women [patients] in particular."
(Dreams in Folklore, Freud and Oppenheim, 58 ed, pg 33) There's also
"In the anxeity dreams of young girls, pursuit by a man armed with a
knife or rifle plays a great part."  (Freud 52 ed, pg 507).

Freud's interest lay in what guns signify to people who fear them, not
to their owners.  More importantly, Freud's concerns were not with
guns as guns, but guns as symbols, as dream objects.  Read the 10th
lecture.  (According to Freud, watering cans and trees are also
phallic symbols, not just weapons.  Should we wonder why Morse' didn't
bother to mention non-weapons in his rant about phallic symbols?)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, kinda'
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:02:16 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@OHSTVMA.IUPUI.EDU>

On Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:16:00 EST linda said:
>>But if it's not a factor, why is it brought up?
>
>i thought you brought it up when you said you didn't like supporting
>these guys in prison with hard earned $$.

I could have just as easily argued that I don't like having to pay for
their executions in the same way -- make them earn their own...organs,
medical experiments, etc. no?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:38:22 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      re: gun control, kinda'

From:         Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> There is no room for debate about the intent of a criminal making use of a
> firearm.  The threat carries with it an implied "You're going to die".  The
> use of another type of weapon would generally lessen the immediate potential
> for death.  It's hard to struggle with an airborne projectile.  If executing
> criminals that make use of firearms results in a trend to less potent types
> of weapons, then what's your problem?

First my apologies for sending the earlier post by accident.

(I was not gonna respond to this but since there is a renewed
interest in the gun control topic..., what the heck, here it
goes.)

Let us all remember what Robert said above in defense of capital
punishment when we debate gun control.  You cannot have it both
ways.

> ---Robert

--KAT
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, 8 Oct 1992 22:21:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt348696@drew.edu>, "I. P. Freely" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writ
   es:
>
> Harsh?  Placing the store owner in fear of his/her life isn't harsh?  Getting
> shot isn't harsh?  Possibly dying from the wound isn't harsh?  When one
> points a gun with intent to commit crime, his/her right to any expectation
> of consideration other than the death of the victim is unwarranted and
> undeserved.
>
> ---Robert

let's see.  A gun appears to pretty nasty.  Every person who uses a
gun in a robbery should be killed.  How about a baseball bat?  A
switchblade?  Most people would be rather frightened if someone came
up with any weapon (or if physically powerful, no weapon at all) to
your house or on the street.  Death penalty for all?  Death penalty
even for an assault that may be dangerous if it isn't taken care of?  Rape
in many cases is a hell of lot worse than the threat or even the use
of a gun, death again?  Don't put much value on human life that isn't
unborn, huh?  The right to life isn't applicable to scumbags? I'm sick
and damn tired of people selectively preserving life and being so damn
sanctimonous about it!

               -Joe
From: JPERRY@ERS.BITNET (Janet Perry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Who's scarier?
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:55:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

A wonderful topic for Halloween......
Bev says:
>Despite my bias, I find it hard to believe that anyone could give a win to
>Quayle. I thought he came across as an immature, out-of-control, spoiled
>child. Gore on the other hand, seemed in control and presidential. How could
>anyone conclude that Quayle is a better choice for VP than Gore? Isn't the
>thought of Quayle as president about the scariest scenario imaginable?

Actually, Stockwell as veep is scarier.  This man is a hero, and should be
treated with respect and honor.... but Vice President??????  I mean, how is
Ross's health?

>Bev

--Janet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: U143@CS.CCIW.CA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Reply to Crime, punishment, reincarnation...?
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:19:17 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X400-Trace: CA*DOE*CCIW; arrival Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:19:17 +0600 action Relayed
P1-Message-ID: CA*DOE*CCIW; 921016151854679-MTANVE
UA-Content-ID: 921016151854679-
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Ya, Shore!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:42:45 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: campaign politics -- uggh

Uggh is right.

I mean, I could almost have share is Bush's
dismay with the tricks Clinton used to get
out of being drafted...if Bush's running
mate weren't equally guilty.

But, *especially* in these post-soviet union
days, this "clinton is not a patriot because
he visited moscow on break from college 24
years ago" is just about the stupidest thing
I have heard from any candidate during my
lifetime.  Even worse than potatoe.

I mean, do any of you listmembers imagine that
even Robert or Travis or Carl would have resorted
to that argument?  Think about it seriously for
a minute.  I just gotta believe that our own
terrible trio all have more good sense and good
manners than that.  And that's saying a lot.

So, ask yourself now - can you really vote for
the Bushman after that?

Wait - not depressed enough yet?  Then stop and
think to yourself "can it really be possible that
25% or so of the country *is* really thinking of
voting for him?  could they really believe that
Clinton's visit to Moscow is evidence that he is
a KGB mole, and like some twisted SF scenario,
the ex-communists are trying to infiltrate our
country now that their own has become uninhabitable
(for them, at least) and by electing clinton, we
are surrendering our country to the evil empire?"

Who are those people?  Are americans really that
flat out stupid?  I mean, 25% of the country (or
thereabouts) is eating that story up.

Of course, these are also the same people who are
intently following the saga of the bat-child.
The Weekly World News sells a lot of papers.

                          -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:02:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: campaign politics -- uggh

gee thanks tim,

now i'm really depressed. what a ray of sunshine on this really gloomy rainy
friday.

25%. these are the people i avoid in bars.

on friday.

- linda  (you owe me a beer for wrecking my last couple a minutes here)

:) only kidding
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:06:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Der Veependebaten

        A lot of people on Clinton think the Bush campaign is organizing
people to call C-Span.  I don't know, I don't listen to the call-in shows.

                                                Chris Morrison
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: WWF (AKA the veep debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:19:29 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>Try again.  Those are two examples where it is easy to believe that
>there's some wrong-doing on Bush's part, where it would be really
>convenient if he'd done something wrong, but reality doesn't seem to
>work that way.

Readers should remember, though, that Andy does not consider
provision of nuclear weapons to Iraq to be "something wrong."

There has also been information, recently revealed, that
April Glaspie was not acting as a loose cannon when she
told Saddam that the U.S. wasn't taking sides, but was
rather acting in accordance with official policy.

This information surfaced after the official investigation
was closed. I have no idea whether the investigation also
managed to come up with it. None of us has any idea, because
the investigation files are not public.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan Fisher))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: subscribe
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:30:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Sub Jonathan Fisher

Jonathan Fisher
jfisher@netxwest.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:47:54 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: nag, nag, nag

>i also thought the alfonse "you say d'amayto, i say" d'amato filibuster
>was kinda funny.

Also worth noting were the long rambling questions of fellow New York
Senator Pat Moynihan to give D'Amato some time to rest his voice.  Didn't
sound too different from some of Moynihan's real questions at times.  Too
bad there was no duet between the fellas on "The Yellow Rose of Texas"--I
think it would have capped the filibuster appropriately.


>did it work?

My guess is that it nailed down the Cortland vote for D'Amato.  That's
where the typewriter factory is (or was).  Onward to Batavia, Al!

>anneliese.

...Rick
From: ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET (Tim Johnson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: No joke!
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:00:46 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>Personally speaking though, I think some of these discussions might
>benefit from some fresh viewpoints and preferably some from outside the
>left-wing, liberal, unrealistic world of academia. Of course, that's
>just my opinion and probably not one that will get much attention
>from some of you "highly educated" folks.

  Jamie, Jimbo, liese, and the rest of y'all - I think
you are being way to harsh on this guy.  I mean, I sort
of agree with him.  I think having uneducated opinions
on the list is important.  The ignorant doubtless have
a lot to teach us.

                     -Tim"I'm a fan of Geraldo, so I know I'm right"J
From: andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, kinda'
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:57:35 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>once you say that a person with a family is more valuable than one
>without one, you enter a minefield.

I think we're mixing up a number of different things here, probably
because we haven't decided what we're trying to accomplish.

For example, we punish people who murder known-to-them agents of the
state more severely than people who murder "the rest of us".  What
does this accomplish?

Suppose I steal $2k total from two people.  One of them is rich and
one is poor.  Should my punishment depend on the effect of that theft
on the victim?  If so, should it also depend on what I know about the
victim?

>All things being equal, each person should be treated equally in a court of
>law, the victim and the criminal.

But, what does "equal" mean?

Stealing $100 from a poor person affects them more than stealing $1.9k
from a rich one.  It isn't clear which of these two affects society
more.  Then there's the thief's point of view.  How should these
factors be weighed?

-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, 15 Oct 1992 20:00:00 EDT
From:         welcome to the faith dome explosion <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      top ten ways dan quayle prepped for the debate
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Thought some of ya might enjoy this.  Pinched it from alt.fan.letterman -
those who watch the show regularly probably remember it from tuesday.

Gary W. Olson                "My lips may promise but my heart is a whore"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU  - Nine Inch Nails, "Last"
19 days and counting down...
--------------
We have to do our top ten list and get on with the exciting program.
From the home office in Tahlequah, Oklahoma the ...

Top Ten ways Dan Quayle prepared for his Vice Presidential Debate

   10. Learned to say  _rebuttal_ without giggling.
    9. Had hole drilled into hist skull to let out some of
       the pressure.
    8. Bought enough candy to last 90 minutes.
    7. Read book of inspirational stories about dumb guys
       who went up against smart guys....and won!!
    6. Bounced a few ideas off Millie.
    5. Streamlined story of time his National Guard Unit
       was pinned down four hours by a scrappy dachshund.
    4. Two words: Cliff Notes.
    3. Memorized real snappy comeback to that "You're no
       Jack Kennedy" line.
    2. Reread his "How a Bill Becomes a Law" comic book.

... and the number one way Dan Quayle prepared for his Vice Pres-
    dential Debate......

    1. Worked on his putting..

*****The Top Ten List is posted for the enterainment of Usenet readers.
     It is not to be sold or used in any way which would get anyone in
     legal hot water. This is not to be distributed without this
     disclaimer.  I told 'em not to, so don't try sueing me, jack.*******
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:54:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gun control, kinda'

>Now tell the class *why* it costs a factor of several times more to
>convict & kill someone...could it be:  a lengthy and multi-layered
>appeals process?  Can you see lawyers dreaming of $$$$s because they
>manage to pull a publicity-laden case out of the fire and thus
>gain a lifetime of business as a result?

yes, macp., i agree that is a big factor in those figures ....and, that's why
i don't think the "cost" to taxpayers for housing a lifer as opposed the a
person condemned to death is a good argument for or against the death penalty.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:39:35 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Aztecs

>One cannot judge Aztecs by our standards.

Hmm.  It seems that we judge losers by their standards, but winners by
ours.  Then again, since said winners are often vaguely related to us,
that may not be the real off-key note in this particular song.

The "clash" comes partly from the absolute vs relative distinction,
which excuses barbarity by "them" because that's how they are, but
damns us for it, because we're supposedly different.  Yet, our actions
sometimes demonstrate that we're not but still we're damned.

-andy
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:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:35:32 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      More on Carter and economics...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Mike says:

>Hi there, people!  This is my first post so go easy on me if you would.  Since
>I'm almost done Friedman's _Free To Choose_ and he speaks about the economics
>of the '70's oil crisis, I felt the overwhelming urge to respond.

That's what we're here for; now, if we can do something about those silly
monetarist leanings... B)

>There was nothing wrong with Nixon's decision for letting the dollar float.

Not if you don't mind perpetual destabilization of currency values which causes
destabilization in the terms of trade between nations; ultimately destabilizing
our domestic economy...

> The "devaluation" of the dollar simply brought it in line with existing
>currency rates around the world.

Oh, that simple,eh? It wouldn't have had any other effects now would it?

> The reason we had the freakin' oil crisis is because Carter as
>well as Ford and Nixon put a ceiling on prices which could be charged for oil
>by U.S. oil companies.

You may or may not be old enough to remember that price controls (as well
as wage controls) were imposed on most things; the oil companies were just
greedy enough and powerful enough to get their way. These controls were
imposed to bring inflation under control. You also may not be old enough
to remember that some of the (US) oil companies got into a little hot water
back then for a little thing called collusion? You could have missed it,
it got covered up better than Neil Bush's banking irregularities.

>This ceiling was below the cost which OPEC had imposed
>on the whole world.

OK, but what you leave out here is that OPEC imposed these price hikes
on the whole world because of the global inflation that was a result
of Nixon's floating of the dollar.

> You let the market go and it does mostly good
>things, you let the government go and in the name of protecting consumers from
>high prices or "windfall profits", you get mile-long gas lines and shortages.

Now let me get this straight; you think that it is the natural tendancy of
government to protect the interests of the "little guy" at the expense of
those poor, beset corporations?


>                             --Mike (an econ major dontcha know)

-other Andy (I don't practice the black arts, like economics, I just
                play the home version of the game)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:19:16 -0400
From:         "The Gilded Age is Alive and Well... or maybe it should be the
              Gelded Age" <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: FEAR? TO RESTORE ORDER?

first things first.. this is not a democracy, because if it were
there would be no way to keep from killing each other! The purpose of government
is to maintain order, it is there for no other reason. Now I think the federal
government should leave me and my belongings(including any guns[even a mortar
unit if i want it] that i see fit to own) alone.  The fear thing was drastic,
i realize. But the government provide for the common defense and the other
things, but they no longer have respect from many people and the respect
must be there in order to govern. Now, if we take the guns away,( even the
police aren't heavily armed) then we will lose more respect because in the
simplest of terms, the government is no longer capable of doing things that
were laid down in the Preamble of the Constitution. Now, when the government
no longer does it's job and forsakes it's duty to the people, then
it's time to get rid of it. How many people honestly trust the government,
or even vote ? How many problems do we have that are so incredible that we
can't begin to comprehend them??? Like maybe the economy, or the United States
 Military, or heck.. the government itself. Are you aware that Congress can't
veto an  organization it created. Sounds to big to me. No violence
is a pleasant little idea, but it will never come about, because every
single sentient creature on this earth has it and we are included in sentient.
The best we can hope for is to try for the routes with less violence.
    I realize this has gotten a bit bigger than just the no violence thing
however .. this is to point out that the no violence is very low because we
have many other things to deal with, if we work those out, the violence
will resolve itself, because violence comes because of anger.. and if we can
eliminate the anger, then the violence will disappear.


 I'm off of my stump now and i'll shut up.... so i guess i'll catch hell
 over this one.



           john Stith
          stustith@eku
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:42:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: reaction to 1st debate

> I've now watched the debate twice. I continue to be fascinated by
> the exchanges - relative politeness, no in-depth discussion (though
> this format gave little room for such either), and few barbs. Bush
> appeared to be the most "on attack," with most of his attacking
> directed at Clinton specifically or Democrats generally. Clinton
> scored with the business about Bush's dad and McCarthy, and Perot
> scored big by cliches, homilies and homespun folksiness (though he
> offered precious little of substance, and Bush misunderstood what
> Ross meant by "lack of will" on the drug front. Ross means we have to
> suspend the Bill of Rights to dwemonstrate "will," Bush thought he
> was after the DEA).

Bush's attacks seemed to run out of steam about halfway through--I
wish I had kept count of how many times he said "tax and spend."  The
comments Perot made about the drug war were chilling.  In a way it's
nice that he has some plans about what to do if he's elected: too bad
that the plans he does have are so awful.

> But, we the voters DID get to see these three attempt to answer some
> of the questions raised in this election. I say Bush "lost," Clinton
> held his own, and Perot gained - nobody "won." That is the view this
> observer has on this intriguing exchange. I heard many people missed

I agree.  Too many of Clinton's responses sounded like set pieces--
especially in contrast with Perot, he sounded much too rehearsed (or
perhaps memorized is a better word).  In contrast, Bush sounded like
he hadn't bothered to rehearse at all, and the repetitive, unfocused
nature of some of his remarks didn't help him.  Also, I think that his
attempts to take credit for the end of the Cold War will ring false
to most people.  As far as tone went, Perot clearly stood out.  He
seemed, more than the other two, to be answering the questions put to
him.  But to me, he also seems like a doctor who looks at the patient,
correctly diagnoses anemia, then turns around and prescribes leeches.

> them in the next 4 weeks. But, in closing, Perot ran away for the
> critical months of July-September, so if he is pressed by the press,
> and has to take the heat Clinton has had to take for a year, will he
> reveal the "real" Perot, or will he prevaricate? VMS

He's already revealed quite enough for me, thank you very much :-).

Best,
Peter
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU