HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:41:08 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      long time, no type :(
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
Geez, don't you people have finals or anything?  I finally got sick, and
had to purge 200+ messages on friday and another 198 today!  Actually, I
tried to follow a few interesting threads, but it's tough when you can't
see who wrote the message.

Anyway, some off-the-cuff responses, real quick:
Jamie and Joe:  neat discussion of the hate crimes thing.  The only problem
I have with it is this:  when Jamie writes, I think "yeah -- he's right!".
Then, when Joe responds, I think "yeah -- he's right."  Guess that means
it's pretty good, eh?

Val:  thanks for the post about "minority behaviors" -- I'm sure I'll use
that phrase many times in the future.

Linda:  Don't complain.  The only Xmas party on my campus that has *any*
alcohol is one that's held *off* campus (and starts way late at night, and
is attended by lots of folks who actually go out and buy expensive new
clothes just for this event.  Obviously I don't go very often! :))

Jimbo:  I'd be interested in your views about why women are paid less than
men and why the gov't shouldn't do anything about it.  And I won't hold
Caius against you :)

Ramon:  Hi.  I've heard a lot about you.  In case no one filled you in, I'm
half of the Kerry ticket -- gone but not forgotten!  Don't let those tall
persons fool you. . .

MMorse and rtf:  no, no -- not artificial insemination or fornication --
parthenogenesis.  Doncha know the "h" stands for "haploid"?

Best wishes to all who are heading for vacation.  I'll be around for the
rest of the week, myself (hee, hee).

Have fun
Kerry
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:32:32 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      On consensus, "scientifical eveidence," and common usage ...

I was not going to get enticed into this, but with my motives impugned, false
accusations about my actions made, and misuse of terms offered, I felt I had
to at least comment. My sending "On Rightism ..." twice was an accident, hitting
   the wrong key as I was sending my file, any intimitation that I was attemptin
   g
to intimidate the list by "VOLUME" is a canard of the lowest kind. My history
of over three years on POLITICS would give the lie to that. "Consensus" =
"General agreement or accord." I suggest that "common usage" and the large
majority of both historical and political writing for over fifty years would
state "Nazism = rightism." However, I have NEVER intimated that Senor Caius
was a Nazi, despite his claim to be rightist. MY claim is that my field -
history - and a large chunk of the political reading I've done in 35 years
across all kinds of political lines calls Nazism a right wing behavior. As
a general rule, "scientifical evidence," or just the offering of credible
evidence, is generally acceptable to the community at large, unless that
evidence has already been discredited, which has NOT occurred in either Bullock
or Shirer's case. Prove to me that there is "NO consensus," because I believe
there is, all to the side of equating Nazism as right wing behavior. "Volume"
is not how I try to persuade ANTONE, but by acceptable evidence - which what
I offered IS to 95% of the politico-historical community. So, deny reality
all you like, but I suggest that impugning my motives, or denying "consensus,"
or just being pig-headed about reasonable evidence will not allow your argument
to prevail. VMS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:20:49 GMT

"rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU> writes:
>> Let me give an example you might agree with.  I think that a plausible
>> case can be made that Spike Lee is something of a racist.  To take a
>> representative example quotation to prove my point, note that Lee
>> claimed that only a black man could make the movie about Malcolm X.
>> I think that it isn't at all unplausible to interpret that as a
>> racist claim, i.e. a claim that a person's skin color determines the
>> content of his or her ideas or character.
>>
>> But Spike Lee has black employees and many black fans.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>
>  but does spike have whites or asians working for him? racism is
>not about how you feel about and act towards blacks only, but about
>how you feel about and act towards persons of a different race than
>yourself, as compared to persons of the same race as yourself.

I don't see how this changes the argument.  Let's suppose that Spike
Lee DOES have Asians and whites working for him.  He still said what
he said, I still argue that looking only at who an entertainer has
as fans and employees is insufficient to determine whether or not that
entertainer is racist.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:38:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      dull tv and bro "logic"

Jimbo,

You are so SENSITIVE.

I'm with you though, and I've noticed that Arsenio Hall refers to
whites as "boys" and speaks like a mouse whenever he purports to be
imitating a white person ... the implication being that white people
are whimpy litte fluffs that ought to be stamped out of existence so
Arsenio can rule the WORLD.         aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghhhh !     psr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:40:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

Thanks anyway, though, too, Jamie, but the disparaging term you seek is:
Papist.

"Popish" means that someone or something is rather like the Pope, i.e. "that
statement is pretty popish" or "your wardrobe is rather popish" :).

If you seek a term describing a person or a group of people, then you would
use the -ist, in this case "papist".

Also, since it appeared that by "anti-popish" you meant "against the papacy"
and/or "against those who are papists (catholics)", you would say "anti-papist".

BTW - to be further nitpicky, catholics are not papists.  _Roman Catholics_
are papists.  I'm sure an Episcopalian or Eastern Orthodox Catholic would
take offense at being thought of as a Papist.

Thanks anyway, though...

-T.
Who is both anti-papist AND anti-popish....
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, 11 Dec 1992 20:29:49 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      RE: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Dec 10, 92 8:29 am

Stephan Melin pisze:
>>
>> Actually converting to gold as currency would wreck the whole economy:

Disargee. Most of the 19th century economies flourished despite (or because
of) deflation.

>> the value of the goods and services available on the market exceeds the
>> value of all gold available (world wide).

Yes, that's right (in current prices). But I do NOT want to abolish banks
and banking services entirely. And I don't think it is possible.
I only want "banking money" to be based on something REAL, like gold.

Banks borrow and lend money. If they lend more that they borrow, they
produce "banking money". If they lend too much they should go bankrupt.
I want this *too much* factor to be based on somethig real, like gold.

I see no such brake in todays economy. So we have inflation.
Of course it would require abolishing compulsory bank deposits insurances.



>> [..]  So when one wants to have growth
>> of the economy, one has to increase the amount of money available at the same
>> rate.

It is not obvious. Hayek thought that 0 percent monetary growth would
produce the best results in the economy.

>> Increasing the amount of money faster results in inflation,
>> increasing slower results in deflation.

Absolutly right! But the more important is the monatary stability, that is
wether people know if there will be more/same/less money and how much.

Our governments can manipulate money supply, so that we have the cycles.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech is back
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:04:22 GMT


Interestingly, in this this case, as in the previous case, those
prosecuted are African Americans. As before, they are accused harming
whites.

With the re-instated death penalty, most states have worked hard to be
sure a white is the first one killed by the state. (I guess, so people
think the penalty is being applied in a racially balanaced way).

With these new hate crime prosecutions, the states aren't even
bothering to create facade of racial balance.

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/wisconsin-v-mitchell
=================
* Expression -- Hate Crimes -- Wisconsin v. Mitchell

A political magazine's description of _State of Wisconsin v. Todd
Mitchell_, a Wisconsin Supreme Court case which appeared to outlawed
all hate crime laws in Wisconsin.

=================
law/rav-v-st-paul.1
=================
* Expression -- Hate Speech -- RAV v. St Paul -- 1

The Supreme Court's _R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul_ decision about hate crimes.

The Court overturned St. Paul's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which
prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to
know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender."

By 9-0, the Court said the law as overly broad. By 5-4, the Court said
that the law was also unfairly selective because it only tried to protect
some groups.

Included: summary, majority opinion, 3 concurring opinions.

=================
=================

If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
   gopher gopher.eff.org

These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/wisconsin-v-mitchell
  pub/academic/law/rav-v-st-paul.1

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law wisconsin-v-mitchell
send acad-freedom/law rav-v-st-paul.1
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET (Andrew Allen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:52:41 GMT
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

>If there is a place in the Universe where homosexuals are considered normal
>let's send them there!

Homosexuality is a normal trait on Earth, the trait among earthlings
to consider that homosexuality is not normal is also normal.

Perhaps the simple solution, rather than "sending" anybody
anywhere is to educate those who have an erroneous belief
in the abnormality of homosexuality.

Re-education will be offered at your convenience in a neighborhood
near you.

>Caius.

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:12:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      hume v. spike lee / limbaugh

OK, I'll play David Hume and impose order on the semantic universe.

It is certainly true that a "racist" with power has a better chance
to discriminate based on race than a racist without power.  A majori-
ty of "racists" has a much better chance of exercising its power to
discriminate than a minority.  If Spike Lee, in his own feeble way is
is only trying to say this, god bless him for saying the obvious in a
manner so confusing.

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.

The empowerment/racism link is cute, and terribly convenient for
those in "minorities" who want to accuse with vigor and be exempt
from any suggestion that they, themselves, are exempt from a plague
that has affected all peoples for thousands and thousands of years.

As for the "bigot" distinction ... I don't know.  Bigotry strikes me
as a similar, perhaps related concept, that is much more broad.  I
could live with the suggestion that racism is a type of bigotry.  Big
otry can, obviously, be focused at anyone.

But, an obvious question arises ... what if a person has no power and
is not able to exercise his/her bigotry, but can only feel the pains
and agony of the exercise of other people's bigotry through power ?
Can a person without power be a bigot ?
Why can a person wihtou power not be a racist, but a person without
   power can be a bigot ?
Conceptually, I cannot think of anything that distinguishes the two
concepts so as to allow me to make the distinction ... of course, I
have the right to do it but ...

So, I say stick with the intuition on this one.
There is certainly nothing intuitive about the power/racism link ...
only a personal appeal to those who would benefit from the distinctio
n or would like to appear thought provoking at parties.

I guess another nagging question is how much power does a person have
to have before he/she becomes eligible for the racist category ? 20%
40% of the total power ... in an organization ? state ? region ?
country ?

That's too complex for me.  Utimately, it comes down to a question of
standard usage or semantic rhetoric.
                                              psr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:54:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      its that time again folks

nono, not that time of month.....

friday beer countdown starts promptly at noon.

and considering how perfectly dull some of the discussions are today, we
sure as hell need a little brew to liven things up.

well, i'm off for the cocktails part of our library staff xmas party.
cocktails consist of a couple gallons of white, red, and a six pack or so
of rolling rock (the local brew from Latrobe, PA). we're not talking a wild
crowd here. i'll stay for the free food, but i'll be back when they bring
in the kids reading xmas poetry (god, i'd like to throttle the one who thought
that one up) and the old lady chorale singers (no lie guys, they got them out
of a nearby retirement home).

i gotta find another job.

later,
-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:31:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      rush and the wwf

Andy,

I have always looked at it this way ... a defensive guy rushes the
punter and, failing to block the kick, falls down ... but no part of
him (the defensive guy) even so much as touches the punter.  What
happens ?  The punter falls down and puts on the worst acting since
the last Kevin Costner flic and a flag is thrown.  The 15 yard penalt
y gets a first down and the game is won and lost on the punter's con-
trived behavior !

On the other hand, the Macho Man picks up his 300 pound opponent -
above his own head - for several seconds, and throws him down !!!

Who are the REAL atheletes ?

Which is the REAL sport ?

I rest my case.
                                psr
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 19:17:04 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      homos having kids
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              17, 92 2:31 pm

Jamie pisze:

>> > Homosexuals cannot have kids.
>>
>> That is false. In fact, it is very obviously false. Anyone who bothers
>> to think about it will see that it is false.

Really? Can they.

What about 2*2=4? Is it also very obviously false?

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:27:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Words

Historical racist popish torts...

(gee, sounds kind of like the official breakfast food of POLITICS...)

<grin>


Ellen
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: racism
Date: 17 Dec 1992 13:33 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212171545.AA05336@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,        
 Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>So you think, that when a white policeman hits a black hooligan it's
>racism.
> 
>And the opposite is "social justice" and "minority rights"

Not necessarily.  The general inference is that there are racial overtones in 
both cases, but that historically, it's more likely to be racial in the white
attacks black situation.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:58:44 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>Thanks anyway, though, too, Jamie, but the disparaging term you seek is:
>Papist.
>
>"Popish" means that someone or something is rather like the Pope, i.e. "that
>statement is pretty popish" or "your wardrobe is rather popish" :).

Popish, adj., Of or pertaining to the popes or the Roman Catholic
Church. Used disparagingly.

American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College edition.

>If you seek a term describing a person or a group of people, then you would
>use the -ist, in this case "papist".
>
>Also, since it appeared that by "anti-popish" you meant "against the papacy"
>and/or "against those who are papists (catholics)", you would say "anti-papist"
Or "anti-popish."
:-)


>BTW - to be further nitpicky, catholics are not papists.  _Roman Catholics_
>are papists.  I'm sure an Episcopalian or Eastern Orthodox Catholic would
>take offense at being thought of as a Papist.

Good point.

>Thanks anyway, though...

You're quite welcome.

I'll see if I can dig up some good citations.

I think my dictionary is sufficient, but citations are always fun.

Jamie
From: EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET (Ellen.Edgerton)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Other People's Money
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:43:54 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Brett':

My apologies for my admittedly silly assumption about you.  From our
previous discussion I should have known better than to slap you with
a label.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:55:17 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I said:
>
> > Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
> > the person who earned it.
>
> Titivillus responds:
>
> >Now hoss, I know what you're talking about, but I think you got a
> >theoretical problem here. You seem to hold the government as something
> >inflicted upon us, and 'us' as a group of people connected only by
> >proximity and a somewhat common language.
>
> .other stuff deleted.
>
> Not at all: we have a limited government of the people, by the
> people and for the people, right? :-)  My statement emphasized
> (perhaps overly so) the source of public funds to remind those
> (all the Congresspeople on this list) who are eager to spend
> public money that the money comes from someone who has worked
> for it. I don't begrudge every dollar I pay in taxes but 1) I
> think the benefits of many programs for the "public good" are of
> dubious value, if not counterproductive; and, 2) I see few
> limits to the expansion of government, with which I don't agree.

"overly so" sounds about right. I see where you are coming from
(again! <CLICHE ALERT!>) and I agree with you on a number of those
issues. There are parts of the US government that I'm not really
thrilled about (some from direct contact!) but I try to see it all as
as a whole and see the good it does as a whole.

Minor point (insignificant, really): The money comes from the taxed
but its origin is in a building in Washington DC. (Treasury Dept.)

> - David  (I love this country ... really)

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is
big enough to take it all away.
              --Barry Goldwater

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:53:26 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      An apology ...

I ended up sending "On Rightism..." twice (thrice if you include the one
rejected for being an empty file). Sorry about that. Both the second and
third posting are exactly the same, and I'm sorry that they got loose like
that. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:02:13 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re:Bush
              17 Dec 1992 13:33:01 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

>> ...  Do not say that Bush's loss is
>> proof that rightists are out-of-favor, ...

>> --Dr. Pizz--

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

> Jonathan

But he asked you not to say that.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU