HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:36:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Racism

This is from Pete Hamill's "Breaking the Silence: A Letter to a Black Friend",
_Esquire_, March 1988.

I remember you telling me several times that this was part of the heritage of
three centuries of slavery, a theory most frequently offered by black
intellectuals and white liberals in response to the 1965 Moynihan Report.  In
the days before emancipation (say such theorists), black families were pur-
posefully broken apart by the slaveholders, who feared uprisings by men and
women who didn't want their children born into slavery. As a result, there has
been a psychological fracture in the black family ever since.

But this secular belief in predestination - insisting that human beings are
prisoners of history and not its makers - has been refuted by the stirring
history of black Americans themselves, from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther
King, Jr. and many millions in between.  To insist that only black Americans
are permanent prisoners of the past, unable to shape their own lives, is
itself a form of racism.

Common sense alone tells us that if it had been true, then the trauma would have
affected _all_ blacks; obviously it hasn't.  And the post-slavery history of
the black family indicates that this particular consequence of the "peculiar
institution" was in fact soon left behind.  In his brilliant new book, _The
Truly Disadvantaged_, black sociologist William Julius Wilson shows that in
1940, the last year of the Great Depression, only 17.9 % of black American
families were headed by women, and the reason was usually that the husbands were
dead.  Today, the percentage is 43 and rising, but widowhood is no longer the
cause.  The men are in the wind.  This has had an obvious economic effect; of
black families earning $25,000 a year, only 8% are headed by women; of those
earning $4000 and less, 80% are headed by women.  And that raises the essential
question in refuting the theory: How could slavery have had a greater corrosive
effect on the black family _today_, almost half a century later, than it had in
1940?  The question contains its own answer; it couldn't.



The rest is a real good read, folks - for anyone with thoughts on the subject -


-T.
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, 17 Dec 1992 14:52:53 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>        Are those advocating N% increases in pay for N% increases in profits
>willing to take N% cuts in pay when the business losses N%?

Absolutely, with the proviso that workers have a means of participating
heavily in the decision making process. I *like* the idea of ESOP's,
I would love to see it become the rule rather than the exception.

I imagine that this wouldn't be too popular with the Wall Street
types though.

>Brett'

-other 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:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:13:31 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: andy f. quietly declares class warfare on the "rivet-heads"

Brett', have you been reading my mail?

>        So the government should just seize all income above, say, $25k?

Could you point out where I have *ever* made an assertion to that effect?
(I don't think I've even done it in jest.)

>        I don't think so.  Like I said, taking it because "they have it" is
>class warfare.

Same as above. I believe that I have fairly consistently held that the
wealthy (and business) should pay a fair share of the tax burden based
upon the proportionately larger degree to which they profit from
government services (education of workforce, infrastructure, etc.)
and the privilege of participation in our market.

Did you forget and leave your cardboard cut-out collection home again? B)


>>Don't forget that .30 of every tax dollar collected is transferred into
>>the hands of the wealthy as interest payment on the debt, effectively
>>lowering their rate. In other words, progressivity is an attempt to
>>cause the wealthy to pay the same real rate that everyone else does.
>>The attempt usually fails.

>        Just because the government borrows money does not mean it falls into
>the hands of "the rich".  Pension plans, banks, individuals (of all income
>levels), universities, etc. all hold government securities.

Perhaps you have some figures handy to demonstrate the broad distribution
of interest payments on the debt? My figure (from "Politics of Rich and
Poor" p. 90) is that 80% of the federal interest payments made to persons
went to the top quintile. Beyond that the bidding up of the interest
rates on those bonds has a domino effect on other rates causing the
wealthy to profit more on non-government transactions.


>        Each and every person has the choice to invest in a government
>security.  Crying because those that do actually get a positive return on their
>investment is simply envy.

And how many persons have both a great deal of influence over government
policy (which determines spending levels) and the interest rates paid
on government securities?

There are some folks who profit disproportionately enough from the
interest payments on government debt so as to make the positive
return of others a proverbial drop in the bucket.

>>>        Just wondering about double standards....

>>Let's create a reasonable standard of living that everyone can reasonably
>>attain, then we'll worry about double standards.

>        Let's not rob Peter to pay Mary.

Yeah but let's get Paul's hand out of everybody's pocket...B)

>Brett'

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:51:31 GMT

>Guess I'm really going to show my ignorance here, but, erm....who is Rush
>Limbaugh?  I've seen references to radio programs, comparisons to McCarthy,
>etc, but what is he?  Is he some kind of right wing Midnight Caller, a bad
>comic routine, or what?  Sorry if this seems a tad ridiculous, but Rush
>Limbaugh is not a name I come accross too often over here.

Limbaugh has a radio programme (did I spell that right for your
side of the lake?).  He also has a television show.  

You know:  I used to assume that all the whining about Rush Limbaugh
was just a bunch of liberal whining.  Let's admit it, liberals do
sometimes whine.  Heck, I've got one famous friend who won't even
READ Dinesh D'Souza's book.  He just ASSUMES that it would be awful,
I guess.

But I saw a few minutes of Limbaugh's show the other night.  It was
disgusting.  The man is a dangerous fascist pig.

--Jimbo
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
Date: 15 Dec 1992 21:07 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <00965240.5D422940.24514@topcat.bsc.mass.edu>,   
      dcse10630@TOPCAT.BSC.MASS.EDU writes...
>The drugs (protagladins) used in association with RU486 have not been
>approved and it would take 3 years for FDA approval. Long term effects
>of the drug are not know.  The pill will be abuse and used after the
>recommended 7-9 wks of gestation. the effects of this are unknown. Also
>some cases of excess bleeding has led for the need for instrumental
>intervention and transfussion.

News to me.  Can we have some citations please?

						Dan, ad nauseum
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: aewright@unix.amherst.edu (Anthony E. Wright)
Subject: Request: Jerry Brown Position Paper
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:16:37 GMT

[ Article crossposted from talk.politics.misc ]
[ Author was Anthony E. Wright ]
[ Posted on Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:13:55 GMT ]

I remember seeing on the Net during the primaries a series of Jerry Brown
position papers, including a fairly well-reasoned one on Space Policy. If
anybody out there still has a copy of it, I would apprecaite it if you could
E-Mail it to me. Thanks.

One sentence request: Jerry Brown Position Paper on Space Policy

					Peace,
					Anthony

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:41:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Tim's 'duties'

Does Timmy need more lil' bullies to protect him?:

>From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Tim's 'duties'
>
>wait a minnit here, shouldn't that be an hit?
        ______

Oh, you meant to spell it that way....alt. ed. and all that?

>
>>PS Ramon: have you ever played Ping Pong against an opponent who can barely
>>return your serves?  Kind of bums you out, right?
>
>Oh quit trying to suck up to ramon.  Sheesh. what a toad.
>

How many of us have taken a trip down memory lane because of this one?
We're all growing and maturing constantly, but this frustrated lash really
makes you reminiscent of the times when you were _absolutely_ lacking in
any form of maturity whatsoever, doesn't it?


BTW - can't you brownies come up with something better than toad?  I mean,
I know it's all part of the pretend-social climbing being done up there,
and you'll probably come back with a witlessism about it "fitting", but
surely there's enough imagination collectively you could scrape together,
to find at least one more "acceptable" insult.

I say "acceptable" because you can call me a "toad" and there's no backlash;
I, however, cannot call you a "bitch" without repercussions.  But since I have,
I really don't care. :)

Interesting: both toad and bitch describe living things, as well as having
almost identical (insulting) secondary meanings.  Yeah. It kind of fits.


>
>jenna



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:52:19 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject: Re: prime theories
              14 Dec 1992 13:52:33 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

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

>> If someone shows a causal relationship that when top rates are
>> reduced that we increase incomeXrate I am willing to consider
>> it.

> The relevant mechanism has been presented.  ....................

Really, where and when?  Maybe a mechanism that would result in
such thing was shown (the Laffer curve?) but one still has
to prove that that mechanism is indeed what is happening.

> Interestingly enough, with the above KAT says that he'd be willing to
> accept a "the income of 100 people will quadruple if we drop their
> average tax rate by 50%" deal because 4ir/2 > ir.

So what is interesting about it?

Andy is "confusing" consideration with acceptance.

> But for now . . . I don't care what the published rates are.
> If I make $50,000 (gross) and pay $10,000 in taxes and the next
> typical, average rich guy makes $500,000 (gross) and pays $50,000
> in taxes, I call that unfair (I am willing -- but not happily --
> to exclude Social Security TAXES -- yes TAXES -- out of the above
> calculation).  You can tell me that he is paying MORE taxes than I am
> till you are blue in the face, I will not buy it and will still claim
> that it is unfair.

> KAT is confusing "less" with "unfair".  Said average rich guy is
> paying MORE, that's a fact.  It may be "not enough", that is,
> "unfair", but it is MORE.

Very cute.  No, KAT did not CONFUSE less with unfair.  Maybe KAT meant
to say, "You can tell me..., I will still claim that that is unfair."

If you think that KAT is claiming that $50,000 is not more than $10,000
then your judgment in debating with KAT comes under severe questioning.
Your choice.

>> I said the above under the assumption that a fair tax system is
>> a progressive one.

> Progressive marginal or progressive average?  One can have one without
> the other.

How about both.

> -andy

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet", IN%"swf7@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:01:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: help
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet, swf7@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu

Scott:
>Can anyone help me?  I just tried to send a NOMAIL message to listserv and
>got back a message that I am not a member of the list?  If I am not a member
>than how am I getting messages?

Bitnet moves in strange and mysterious ways, compadre.

The next step I recommend is to try to send the message

set politics nomail

to both listserv@ohstvma and listserv@ucf1vm.  If they both laugh at you, then
contact the listowner, Eric Anderson (ANDERSON@UCF1VM.BITNET), and explain
what is happening to him.

>  Scott W. Fischer

Gary W. Olson, who may,
  just may, have the faq done
  this weekend...               "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:44:01 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>How about it's because Packwood "admitted" his wrongdoings and Inouye has
>denied his.
>
>Jonathan

        Just like Clarence Thomas.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:39:48 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>The first post was a notation about a story.
>The second post was to correct Tim's assumptions - and to clarify
>_why_ the first post was important.
>....
>Does anybody really believe it's worth anything to broadcast a story about
>pay inequalities if it doesn't concern equal work?

  First of all, -T., *I'm* not making assumptions about
the story at all.  I'm not, for example, assuming what
they must have meant by $0.70 to the $1.00.

  So, help me out, here, -T.  Clarify a few more points.
Did the news say "$0.70 for every $1.00 doing the same
job with the same education and the same experience."
or did it say "$0.70 for every $1.00 doing similar work."
or did it say "$0.70 for every $1.00 doing work in
different jobs which we classify as jobs that should be
paid the same."

  The reason this is important, -T., is because some
assert that there should be equal pay for equivalent
jobs, and, rightly or wrongly, assert that certain
kinds of (generally historically women dominated) jobs
are paid less than certain other kinds of jobs - and
that the two different kinds of work should be paid
the same.

  This is again, a very different statement than
"$0.70 to the $1.00 doing the same job with the
same education and experience."

  And, while you are clarifying this, please indicate
whether this is what they noted in the broadcast or
whether you believe that it wouldn't have made any
sense for them to have reported anything else.  Because,
frankly, I don't have the same confidence that you do
in the good sense of network news story writers.

                        -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:20:52 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: hume v. spike lee / limbaugh

From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET

> I would hold - largely for the sake of simplicity - that a "racist"
> is a person with certain (you fill in the blanks) attitudes about
> race relations.  The power circumstance is irrelevant to the status
> of the those attitudes as attitudes which are representative of a
> racist.  Hence, Hitler was not an individual who magically became a
> racist in 1933 ... because he became empowered ... and then became
> something else non-racist as power slipped away.

In this graduate course that I was enrolled, a few student AND the
professor hated me enough that they would have flunk me if they
could.  Guess what, I wasn't a bit worried about the students,
but was very concerned about the professor.  Go figure.

US is a country with many racist people and many racist acts.  If
we magically remove the racist acts and keep the racist opinions,
do you think racism would still be a problem to be reckoned with?

It algebra sometimes we can solve a problem with a unique change
of variables (a new definition, if you will) that could not have
been solved without it.  Now you may insist on a different change
of variable (a different definition, that is); one that does not help
you solve the problem.  No one can tell you that you violated any
rules by using a different change of variable.  However, your
change of variable would be useless in letting you achieve your
goal.  The point is that racist actions (in a society that one race
is in a POSITION to inflict harm to the other) are our problem and we
need a defintion (terminology) that would help us solve this problem.

> psr

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:28:54 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Yesterday's appointments, and tomorrow's
              12 Dec 1992 07:21:54 CST from <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

On Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:21:54 CST rufus t. firefly said:
>> Who do you think will be Surgeon General?
>
>  kevorkian.

I hope not.
>
>rtf

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:59:51 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: NORNAL
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET" at Dec 17, 92 1:19 am

CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET pisze:

>>         The people in society to whom we look for our understanding of
>> what are "disorders" wholeheartedly disagree with you.  Homosexuality is
>> not considered a disorder, neither physically nor mentally.  That may not

Yes it is. Have you seen , or heard of, any society (lasting longer that 100
years) based on homosexuality?


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:15:21 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>>...
>>>  Oh, and why hasn't the press attacked Inouye like they have Packwood?
>>
>>I don't know. Does Brett have a hypothesis?
>>Jamie
>
>        At the risk of being branded a
>sourgrapesultrarightwingreactionaryscapegoatmudslingingneofascist
>:)

Oh, I would never brand you that, because I know very well you are an

>athiest-libertarian-free market-white/native Am.-hetero-married-suburban-
>evolutionist-pro space-pro choice-pro freedom-pro
>democracy-progressive

:-)

>I'd say it was because Inouye is a Dem while Packwood is a Rep.  Just like it
>was only the Rep Senators that caught heat over the Clarence Thomas hearings
>while people like Ted and Howard were left alone.

Oh, that was my hypothesis about your hypothesis, but I wasn't sure.

I have some data that do not fit your hypothesis.

The Providence Journal, which endorsed Bush and is generally a
Republican newspaper, carried virtually nothing about Inouye and
plenty about Packwood.

I would be interested to hear what other Republican-slanted
newspapers said.

Jamie

(I guess I should have said I have a datum.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:33:01 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re:Bush
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Pizz pithly postulates thusly...

> ...  Do not say that Bush's loss is
> proof that rightists are out-of-favor, since Bush is about as far to
> the left as one can get without becoming a Democrat...
>
> --Dr. Pizz--
>

Bush's loss is proof that rightists are out-of-favor.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:27:52 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: homos having kids

Is anyone else thinking what I am now? That it's getting to be time
to report the deranged Caius to his listowner?
MWM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 15:31:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: auto deaths, drunk driving, guns....

On Mon, 7 Dec 1992 18:30:00 EDT CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET said:
> I believe that the tenth amendment talks about powers not granted to the
> fed govt being reserved for the states - therefore, "regulation" of alcohol
> would be reserved to the Congress; Article I Section VIII says, that among the
> powers of COngress, is:
>
>         To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several state
{,
> and with the Indian tribes;
>
> If you want to PROHIBIT alcohol, that's another question.  But REGULATION, tha
t
> I believe is still in the power of Congress.
>
>
> -T.

Well, the S. Court has said that the 21st Amendment overrules the
Commerce Clause as regards alcohol.

I believe states can prohibit whatever they want, if there is an
interest (how compelling depends on what is being prohibited).
Congress can allow for thru-traffic exemptions, i.e. the contraband
is just passing through the state to get to another where it is legal.
But Congress (and here the S. Court disagrees w/me) cannot allow for
thru-traffic exemptions on alcohol.  I guess it depends on what you mean
by "importation."
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU