waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
(NOTE: cross-posted to alt.politics.italy and talk.politics.misc  This is a reply to an article by Ed Ipser which also appeared in  alt.politics.usa.misc and alt.politics.libertarian, but no longer belongs)   I hate to defend Ed (the article was very poorly written) but here goes:  hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes: >Ed should take a look at the budget deficit Regan and Bush created together >before he starts to make claims about europe collapsing based on the budget >deficits here. None of them are serious on the USA scale.  Italy's per-capita debt is much higher than USA's.   >We do not want our countries to be run by a narrow elite of rich lawyers >for the benefit of the super wealthy.  This is *exactly* what the public in France & Italy perceive to be the problem-- thus the French election and Italian pulizia.   Regarding the post-pulizia Italy: >What looks likely to happen is the fringe parties are going to do much >better in the next election. Most of the parliamentary deputies are going >to get replaced and the parties are going to be forced to look to people >who are free of any hint of corruption. Look out for a parliament of >Pavarotti's and porn stars.  Wrong.  This is true perhaps only for the Lega Nord. The referendum Sunday is expected to establish a British/American style first-past-the-post system in the Senate.  If implemented, it would encourage a two- (or perhaps three-) party system in Italy. Most likely the DC and PSI will not be these parties; rather there will be a shakeup of the entire party structure from which 2 new parties will emerge to dominate.  Will Lega Nord be one of these?  Who knows.  (The Camera dei Deputati (lower house) will likely remain with Proportional Representation for a while, but there is talk of switching a portion of that house, too. Maybe as much as 40% first-past-the-post)  Overall, the electoral reform in Italy is a welcome change.  Italians are tired of having crappy government.  Porn stars, Pavarotti's and Hunters & Fishers won't gain seats because PR is dead.  A good two-party system will bring Italy efficient, accountable government.  It's about time.
Any thoughts on who is going to count all of the gorgeous bodies at the MOW?  The press?  The White House Staff?  The most Junior Senator?  The King of the motss/bi?    	Just curious as to whose bias we are going to see when the numbers  get brought out.  	  --  		bram
In article <1qgbljINNn4o@life.ai.mit.edu>, Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92) writes: >  >                          THE WHITE HOUSE >                      Office of the President > For Immediate Release                             April 13, 1993 >  >      PRESIDENT TO NOMINATE CARTER FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY   No, no, no!  Bill, please, don't nominate ANYone who pronounces it "noo-q-lar"!  Jimmy always used to drive everyone nuts when he did that!  And don't let Amy anywhere near!  And...  > (Washington, DC)    The President announced today that he intends  > to nominate Ashton Carter, the Director of Harvard's Center for  > Science and International Affairs, to be Assistant Secretary of  > Defense for Nuclear Security and Counter-Proliferation.  {Emily Litella voice}  ...never mind.  ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------   Paul Havemann   (Internet: paul@hsh.com)
The article that follows was taken from the Wednesday, April 14, 1993 issue of USA Today ("Drug Use Up At Younger Age" by Mike Snider, p. 1A).      Drug use is on the rise among kids as young as eighth graders -     usually 13 - and they're using more LSD and inhalants like glue     and air fresheners, says a new survey.      The annual National High School Senior Survey on Drug Abuse finds     "statistically significant increases" in eighth-graders' use of     many drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, crack, LSD and inhalants.      "We may be in danger of losing some ... hard-won ground (in reducing     drug use) as a new, more naive generation of youngsters enters     adolescence," says Lloyd Johnston, University of Michigan, chief     researcher on the study sponsored by the Department of Health and     Human Services.      But drug use among high school seniors is continuing a decade-long     decline.      The study of 50,000 students shows the percentage who tried the     following in the 30 days before they were polled:          * 8th-graders  - alcohol 26%; cigarettes 16%; marijuana 4%;                          cocaine 0.7%.          * 10th-graders - alcohol 40%; cigarettes 22%; marijuana 8%;                          cocaine 0.7%.          * 12th-graders - alcohol 51%; cigarettes 28%; marijuana 12%;                          cocaine 1.3%.      Among 12th-graders, use of marijuana, cocaine and inhalants     declined over the year before.  Not so with LSD.      * 2% of eighth-graders have tried LSD in the last year, up 24%     over 1991.       * Use of LSD among seniors is at its highest point since 1982; 6%     tried it in the last year.      Reducing drug use among students "requires a different kind of     strategy" that Health Secretary Donna Shalala says will be part     of an overall illness prevention plan.      The survey shows drugs are easier to get and fewer eighth-graders     disapprove of them.      "It's scary," Shalala says.  "Dealers are focusing on younger, more     vulnerable kids."   Scott Kennedy,  Brewer and Patriot
In article <JASON.93Apr19110829@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes: >In article <1993Apr17.111054.3748@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:  >-> Recent studies have been all over the map.  So have less recent >-> studies.  None can be said to have "shown" anything to within an >-> accuracy of 1/10 of 1%, as you claim here.  >This study is from the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers >in Seattle and was a hot topic in the news last week.  The study >questioned at random 3,321 men in a face to face interview.  This is not a "studies", but a study.  Other studies, including the just-published "Janus Report", give very different figures.  The Janus Report figures are not too different than Kinsey: 9% homosexual men, and 4% bisexual men.  >-> Earlier studies have been all over the map also.    >I think he's talking about Kinsey who came up with the 10% >statistic used heavily by gay groups to push their political agenda. >Kinsey's work has often been accused of lacking a strong scientific >backbone.    Don't be stupid.  The Kinsey report is one study, so it can't be "all over the map" all by itself.  Other studies, including the Battelle one, have also been criticed.  As far as agendas go, this is really chutzpah.  *Your* agenda is obvious.
In article <93093.073457RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes: >From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) >- >-2. The homosexuals have gotten a law passed in California that >-makes it illegal to discriminate against a person in employment >-based on their sexual orientation -- and not defined sexual >-orientation.  Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. >- >      GOT HIM!  Cramer is now claiming that pedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than a chronicly homosexual condition.  This changes the whole argument in as much that is pedophilia is a sexual orientation all of its own peds cannot be called homosexual.  Peds are peds who may have a preference as to the sex of the child they molest (though most do not have a preference) but that is a subset of their basic ped nature.  Cramer has as much as admitted that peds and gay men are different orientations.  All we need now is to get him to admit that the apparent similarities he keeps on about are just optical illusions.  xavier
The Selective Service Registration should be abolished.  To start with, the draft is immoral.  Whether you agree with that or not, we don't have one now, and military experts agree that the quality of the armed forces is superior with a volunteer army than with draftees.  Finally, the government has us on many lists in many computers (the IRS, Social Security Admistration and Motor Vehicle Registries to name a few) and it can find us if it needs to. Maintaining yet another list of people is an utter waste of money and time. Let's axe this whole department, and reduce the deficit a little bit.
In <Apr.20.10.27.01.1993.9195@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:  >In article <15436@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >> [Some chump at Brandeis:]  >>> I mean, how many people actually CARE how many people are gay (as long >>> as you know how to find/avoid them if you want to)?  I don't.  >> If you don't care, why was so much effort put into promoting the >> 10% lie?  Because it was important to scare politicians into >> obedience.  >I wouldn't worry too much about it, though.  We are starting to find >out how politically impotent homosexuals really are.  The Colorado >boycott has fizzled, Slick Willie was effectively prevented from >implementing his military policy wrt homosexuals by members of his >_OWN_ party, this new study casts a large shadow of doubt on their >claims of large numbers, and coming this Saturday they are going to >wind up with _TREMENDOUS_ egg on their face when, I submit, no more >than perhaps 35,000 queers will show up in Washington while they are >promising crowds in the millions.  And most of the ones who will be >there will look like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, not the guy working in >the next cubicle.  As if that's really going to play in middle >America.  Sigh.  You're absolutely right.  We have no political power whatsoever.  Therefore, we should be oppressed and ignored and denigrated, right?  I certainly hope you don't have an SO, sir, because if she heard how disparaging you are towards political minorities, and if she had any shred of self-respect, she'd be out the door.   >Pretty soon they will find themselves retreating back into the closet >where they belong.  Don't count on it, sweetheart.  >--  >  The views expressed herein are   |  Theodore A. Kaldis >  my own only.  Do you seriously   |  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu >  believe that a major university  |  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis >  as this would hold such views??? |    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Certainly not.  Most major universities wouldn't touch views that display the brainpower and the perspective of a mayfly with a ten-foot pole.  Drewcifer  P.S.  Incidentally, I think even mayflies could come up with more enlightenment than the above bullshit.  Evolve a bit, will you?
In article <C5L780.Apu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: > Kaldis writes: > #The fact that she was wearing a miniskirt with no underwear was > #presented as evidence that she was a prostitute, and the court > #apparently found this compelling. >  > Ah, I know women who wear miniskirts without wearing underwear, and > they are not prostitutes.  Do they have a history of working in massage parlors, and telling co-workers there that they are prostitutes?  Do they frequent truck stop parking lots at 4:00 AM, without ID on any sort?  > -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the Religious Left. > >Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them aren't. And the >natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man-made ones. > >Most of your so-called disasters (Love Canal, Times Beach, TMI) aren't disasters >at all. > >So look, if you want to worship trees (or owls or snails or whatever), fine, do >so. But DON'T try to push the scaredness of YOUR religious off onto me. > If you want to see environmental disasters, go to eastern Europe or some parts of the FSU (former Soviet Union).  This is because they had no environmental protection laws and were trying to increase productivity at any expense to justify their political systems.  Luckily for us, some of our politicians with vision passed some environmental laws.  That isn't to say that they shouldn't be modified, but all I ever hear from you is that the environmental laws were dreamed up by a bunch of left-wing tree-huggers intent on putting us back on horseback.  Yes, there are some of those, but a lot of us simply want to procede with caution.  --  John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com) Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies Midland TX  --                 NetNews userid for nntpserver.chevron.com
In article <1993Apr16.200354.8045@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>      rscharfy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ryan C Scharfy) writes:  >Actually, I bet you more gay/bi men are as not as promiscuous as gay men,  >because more of them could have the "option" of living a straight life, and  >with social pressures, probably would at least try.     Geez, where have you been, Ryan?  I proposed this theory *months* ago.  Let's take it one step further, even.  If, as the surveys show, up to 33% of all men have *had* a homosexual encounter, then there must be an even *larger* percentage of people who have had homosexual erotic fantasies.  But if less than 10% of the population is gay, what can we say about these people who don't identify as gay but have demonstrated gay potential.  Obviously, a large chunk of these people *chose* (or, more accurately, were forced to choose by force of religion and social sanction) to put those feelings aside, to be heterosexual.     Obviously, Cramer and Kaldis fall into this category.     These people are the ones who are so hung up on "choice." Obviously, since *they chose*, everyone must have, and homosexuals are just flaunting their "perversion" by choosing not to go along with what society has dictated.     Of course, I'm that most awful of perverts.  I chose, I gleefully admit that I was heterosexual until I met the right man and *chose* to indulge in my homoerotic potential.  Take that!        Elf !!! -- elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)
In <1993Apr15.170715.29896@igor.tamri.com> donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:  |>Think about it -- shouldn't all drugs then be legalized, it would lower |>the cost and definitely make them safer to use.  |I think so.  And I don't use drugs, outside of the legal ones (alcohol |and coffee).  I'm addicted to chocolate myself.
In article <1993Apr15.170239.8211@hemlock.cray.com> 	rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:  >There's a guy on death row in Texas that was denied a new trial, dispite >evidence of his inocents.  I recommend the book "Adams _v_ Texas", the story of a man (Adams) who was sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit.  Most of the book is the story of the long appeals process, and the problems and delays caused by not being able to introduce new evidence in certain courts.
In article <stevethC5JGCr.1Ht@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) wri tes:  > >Just _TRY_ to justify the War On Drugs, I _DARE_ you! >  A friend of mine who smoke pot every day and last Tuesday took 5 hits of acid  is still having trouble "aiming" for the bowl when he takes a dump.  Don't as  me how, I just have seen the results.  Boy, I really wish we we cut the drug war and have more people screwed up in  the head.    >-- >_______ >Steve Thomas >steveth@rossinc.com
> From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)       Bzzzzt.  THANK you for playing, but obviously you are not reading the    material as it is presented.  According to the report I've got in my    hands, the Newsweek article (which reported that "2 to 3 percent" of the    population is gay) used the criteria of "No heterosexual contact in the    past year."  But at the same time, the University of Denver study points    out, quite dramatically, that 60% of all self-identifying gay men have  > had some form of heterosexual contact in the past year.
In article <1993Apr4.163015.10438@highlite.uucp>, croaker@highlite.uucp (Francis A. Ney) says:  [of who else but President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton.] >It's a much better deal to have him end his term of office in disgrace, after >watching all his liberal democrat friends on his staff run this nation down >the toilet.  Tsk. Surely you don't wish for the Democrats to destroy our beloved country just so your party can get some trivial political advantage? That's rather a petty way to think. (Not that this pettiness doesn't extend all the way to the U.S. Senate, I've noticed...)  While Bush was president, I kept hoping and praying that he'd wise up. I couldn't stand the man, but I wish he'd done a decent job; if so, we might not be in the mess we are now, and that would be a small price to pay for suffering through another term of Republican control. Similarily, YOU should be hoping and praying that Clinton does a good job. Even if you're certain he won't.
cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  >judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:  >>cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:  ># #Can you provide some evidence that the slave states regarded slaves as ># #not humans?  They were "outside our society" and similar phrases that ># #basically meant that they didn't have to recognized as having the same ># #rights as a free person, but they were never considered "not human" to ># #my knowledge.   ># 	Isn't the fact that slaves were "purchased" as opposed to ># 	"hired" enough evidence that they were not thought as humans? ># 	Didn't the Bill of Rights provide basic freedoms to humans ># 	that were not available to slaves?  >Not necessarily.  Distinctions were made between "citizens" and >"persons" throughout the U.S. and various state constitutions. >For example, free blacks had some rights of citizens, but not all >the rights of citizens.  I'm curious if there was an additional >level of distinction made by the slave states to rationalize their >treatment of slaves, or if they just ignored the theoretical >problems of slave ownership.  The Bill of Rights, as far as I can see, does not once refer to "citizens", but it makes several references to "people". For example, Article IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"; Article V: "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury ...  nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; Article VIII: "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".  Now I've never heard that Constitutional rights apply only to citizens; aren't they meant to apply equally to all *persons* living in the U.S.? Whether slaves were considered "not human" I don't know, but it seems that a case could be made that they weren't treated as "people" as defined in the Bill of Rights. And since the nation is nominally based on the Declaration of Independence which states that "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", it would also seem that slaves would not follow under this definition of humanity.
In article <1993Apr16.121720.13017@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com ( Russ Anderson) writes: > >In article <15378@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> From the Santa Rosa (Cal.) Press-Democrat, April 15, 1993, p. B2: >> >>     Male sex survey: Gay activity low >> >>     A new natonal study on male sexual behavior, the most thorough >>     examination of American men's sexual practices published since >>     the Kinsey report more than four decades ago, shows about 2 >>     percent of the men surveyed had engaged in homosexual sex and >>     1 percent considered themselves exclusively homosexual. > >Actually, what the study shows is that 2 percent of the men surveyed >*said* they engaged in homosexual sex and 1 percent *said* they >considered themselves exclusively homosexual. >  Yes, and of course the Kinsey Report taken 50 years ago in much more liberal  times regarding homosexuality.........  >The point being that what people say and what they acutally do >may be different. > >It is interesting that this clip from the newspaper did not >mention that difference.  Maybe it is conservative media bias.  :-) >  Or smart enough to realize that that argument would have to apply to every  survey regarding homosexuality.  Therefore, they would look stupid. (Actually,  Idid see Bryant Gumble bring that point up.  Hee, hee).    >     The figures on homosexuality in the study released Wednesday >>     by the Alan Guttmacher Institute are significantly lower than >>     the 10 percent figure that has been part of the conventional >>     wisdom since it was published in the Kinsey report. >
In a previous article, atboyken@iastate.edu (Aaron T Boyken) says:  >In article <C5sno8.H5p@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes: >I've just got a couple of questions about this whole thing. >(3)  Janet Reno jumped up to take responsibilty to take heat away >     from the President.  Does this sound anything like what a couple >     of Reagan's aides did?
does anyone have the e-mail address for the white house. if so please send it to me thanks a lot.
In article <15APR199303031064@reg.triumf.ca> vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes: >In article <C5HwA1.EBp@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu  >(Brent Irvine) writes... >`  >`	"54-40" or fight was about a territorial dispute with >`	British Canada, again OLD STUFF.  > >Uh, not quite. The 54/40' boundary dispute is still unresolved, >and Canadian and US Coast Guard vessels regularly if infrequently >detain each other's fish boats in the disputed waters off Dixon >Entrance. The only reason you don't hear more about it is that >it's in neither country's interest to aggravate the quarrel.  >That doesn't mean that either country is prepared to back down, >especially the local political representatives whose constituents >are all fishermen.  Fishing rights are disputed.  Between 2 nations, no matter *how*  friendly, there is ALWAYS fishing disputes.  What I was getting at was the 54 40' or fight slogan is OLD STUFF dealing with the LAND dispute.  No one is saying 54 40' or fight  about fishing rights.  The territorial dispute about the Oregon Territory (we called it) is LONG resolved.  Fishing rights...small potatoes.
In article <gc3g2B6w165w@honour.welly.gen.nz>, radagast@honour.welly.gen.nz (Radagast) writes: > cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: # # Unfortunately, homosexuals don't believe in this concept of freedom. # # They believe that they have a right to FORCE people to hire them, # # rent to them, and do business with them, regardless of the feelings # # or beliefs of the other person. #  # <ha ha ha#, oh, Clayton, you're so good, so consistent, so predictable, # yup, that's right, they, these homosexual people want to FORCE you to # ignore what's none of your fucking business.  IE. <I will explain slowly# # their sexual orientation should be irrelevant, as irrelevant as their # gender, skin colour, religious affiliation, attitude to hand-gun ownership, # etc.  They want to FORCE you to hire the best person for the job, rent the # accomodation to the person who will look after it, do business with whoever # will make you money..  Yet, when a law was proposed for Virginia that extended this  philosophy to cigarette smokers (so that people who smoked away from the work couldn't be discriminated against by employers), the liberal Gov. Wilder vetoed it.  Which shows that liberals don't give a damn about "best person for the job," it's just a power play.