HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:39:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Re: Hate Speech is back
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt425072@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>
> The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on a Wisconsin case in

they agreed to hear it, but do you know when oral arguments will be?

> which a man convicted of aggravated battery had his sentence increased
> (doubled, actually) because he yelled racist remarks during the attack.
> Wisconsin has statutory increases in penalties for hate-motivated
> crimes.
>
> The Court seemed extremely disinclined to allow this sort of law
> in its opinions in a recent Minnesota case. My prediction is that
> the members will show at least a moderate change of heart.

the reasoning was split 5-4, with the 4 saying the hate speech law was
too broad, implying that 4 would accept a narrowly drawn hate speech
law.  An increased punishment for racial motivated crimes is a
somewhat different issue and many more states (31) have them.  If the
5 follow the same reasoning as they did in the Minnesota case (states
can't penalize certain forms of speech), they should vote the
Minnesota law down.  The difference is that here the hate speech is
not the crime, but the motivation behind the crime and adds to the
punishment.  If anything this is worse in my opinion, but may effect
one of the 5 and will be decisive for the other 4.

> I am very interested to see what Scalia and Thomas say about the case.

Scalia being independant and all should vote the law down with Thomas
probably agreeing.  Thomas, however, once in a dissent said an Aryan's
beliefs can be used in a trial for his crimes, so one never knows.

> And I am also quite interested to see what O'Connor will say, since
> my guess is that she will be Chief Justice after Rehnquist.
>
> Jamie

I think O'Connor would be more likely change her vote in some way
since she often tries to take a middle path.  A more divided court
(the Minnesota case was 9-0) might lead her to have a separate opinion
to set such a middle course.
   Wouldn't Clinton choose someone of his choosing that is a bit more
liberal than O'Connor?

      -Joe

P.S. Nat Hentoff must be quite annoyed; he assured us that in no way
would the Supreme Court accept this case for argument.  Imagine if
they accept the law.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:32:23 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories

>> bracket, so progressive marginal rates make tax-free investments
>> better for rich people than they are for middle-income folk.  That's
>> another argument against progressive marginal rates.  After all, bond
>> issuers pay the same rate to rich and poor.
>
>(Not so fast.)  THAT is another argument against tax-free bonds.
>
>We all have heard that, "a penny saved is a penny earned."  Well,
>actually a penny saved is 1+a penny earned; and that "a" depends on the
>individual's tax bracket.

Nope.  "a" depends on the effective interest rate, which may be
affected by the tax bracket.

>The more income, the higher the bracket,
>and the larger "a" would be.  So, according to Andy, it seems that
>the rich are actually receiving MORE benefit from the progressivity
>of the tax system.  Would Andy argue that, "THAT is another argument
>against progressive marginal rates?"

Considering that he did, he probably would.  Why does KAT ask if I
agree with something I've said?

-andy
--
From: caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL (Grzegorz Albinowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: racism
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:45:58 GMT
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]
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Dec 15, 92 4:16 pm

Ellen.Edgerton pisze:
>>
>> [..] Racism >does<
>> involve people in power, and in the United States of America, the
>> power is overwhelmingly (though not totally) held by whites.

So you think, that when a white policeman hits a black hooligan it's
racism.

And the opposite is "social justice" and "minority rights"

Tell me if you are not.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Return-receipt-to: "KirkpatrickH" <kirkpatrickh@mumcbm.rferl.org>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:28:02 U
From:         KirkpatrickH <kirkpatrickh@MUMCBM.RFERL.ORG>
Subject:      RE: more responses to andy f.'s comments
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>>>while real wages decreased in the 80's.

>        Just wanted to address this point.  Real wages declined in the 70s
>also.  If I could find an old enough (or comprehensive enough :) almanac, I'm
>sure we'd see a decline in the 60s also.
>
>Brett'

Just another note, the "Economist" a British magazine, says that in Real terms
Wages in the US actually rose in the 80's esp. under Reagan.

Just a note.
Kirk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:24:01 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Rush's arrogance is an act.  Anyone that has seriously watched his show would
be able to pick that up.  Is he racist?  There are black people working for him
and black people in the audience.  So I think not.   -Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:41:40 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: your mail

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>>
>> > All others being equal (abilities to do the job) I would choose the NORMAL
>> > person.
>>
>> > If I had an apartment to let, I would demand a higher price from an
 UNNORMAL
>> > person.
>>
>> Are blacks "UNNORMAL?"  How about atheists, jews, nazis, communists,
>> murderers, drug users, etc.?

Did I wrote UNnormal?.  Looks funny. ABnormal looks better.

Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
      what people think, do, choose etc.

Atheists - strange but not dangerous

Jews (nationality) - look Blacks
Jews (religion) - i know nothing about the subject

Nazis - dangerous, hardly normal, violation of law: look murderers

Communists - very dangerous, very clever
Communist Economy - Stupid, does not work

Murderers - Decisivly abnormal - police have much work

Drug Users - your health your decision,
Too much drugs - stupid
Drugs for everybody - abnormal, look communist



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:35:23 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Queens controversy yet again
              17 Dec 1992 14:01:00 EST from <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

> So you need to come up with a better justification for your attitude
> than this.  So far all you've offered is personal distaste as a
> justification for restricting the ability of gays to live or work
> where they please.  That's not enough.  ............................

OK, what if someone is not advocating that gays should not
gain employment, per se, but rather, bigots should be able
to hire/fire, rent/evict whomever they want.  Is that
"freedom" precious enough to preserve, though it might result
in distasteful actions.  For, such a freedom also allows me to
discriminate FOR a gay in my hiring actions.

I am not saying I agree with the above but want to hear good
arguments for and against it.

Is hiring/firing or renting/evicting whomever you want worth preserving?
Does preservation of such rights overweight the harm that it
causes?  Can we look at that those practices as a kind of freedom
of expression worth preserving?

> Peter

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:34:21 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: homos having kids

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>>> 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.

Tell that to many children of homosexuals.

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

Not to anyone "who would bother to think about it."

> Caius

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:21:50 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: why gold
              18 Dec 1992 11:58:52 -0600 from <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>

From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>

> It is interesting that Caius considers titanium as a new standard for "solid
> currency,"I myself once offered the idea that the "new economy" of the future
> might be an energy-based economy. "Ergs (= "A centimeter-gram-second" unit of
> energy ...") or calories might be the new standard, or maybe even

Actually, erg = gram x (centimeter/second)^2.

--KAT, the egomaniac.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:01:50 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tolerance and discrimination are not mutually
              exclusive

>> Morse is confused.  Said employers aren't taking away anyone's right
>> to to engage in those activities.  Said employers are merely saying
>> "go elsewhere".  Your right to have sex with someone who consents to
>> have sex with you does not obligate ANYONE to consent to have sex with
>> you.
>
>No, andy is confused.  These people ARE going elsewhere.

No, they're showing up at work.

And they
>aren't asking the boss to have sex with them.  In fact, the boss
>doesn't even have to know when, how and with whom they have sex.
>Yet that doesn't seem to matter to some bosses.  I guess that's what
>they mean by "prurient interest."

Goody.  I trust that Peter will also obligate synagogues to hire
known Nazis.  After all, they engage in their political activity
elsewhere and it doesn't interfere with their job performance.

Or, are certain beliefs and practices "privileged"?  That's a
principle.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:03:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)

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.

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

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:34:34 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Fetal Logic

Robert posting in reponse to Jamie:

> When I first joined this list I made the mistake of calling you stupid.
> I have since found that accusation to be a little hasty.  You are indeed
> highly intellectual and deserve to be recognized as such.  However, I
> wonder at what cost you achieved your academic prowess.

Well, if the truth to be told, some of us called YOU an "idiot"
on your second post to POLITICS.  I don't want to brag but though
that call was premature it was right on target.  (And yet I didn't
get to be the President. :-)

>>  If a damaged X results in a damaged Y, they are the same.

> A damaged X remains a damaged X.

Thanks for proving my point, again, and again, and . . .

>>Jamie

> ---Robert

--KAT
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:17:03 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes:
> >Rush's arrogance is an act.  Anyone that has seriously watched his show would
> >be able to pick that up.  Is he racist?  There are black people working
> >for him
> >and black people in the audience.  So I think not.   -Rich
>
> Let me see if I can interpret this.
>
> Your claim is that if an entertainer has black employees and
> black fans, then that entertainer is not racist?
>
> That doesn't sound like plausible reasoning, to me.
>
> 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.

rtf
"i'm not racist, i hate everybody equally"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:39:22 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Spike Lee and Racism
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Rick, if you mean to say that racism means a belief in the superiority
of one's race, then why should Maxine Waters be allowed to publicly
call Bush a racist at the Dem. Nat. Convention?  Clearly no one has
accused Bush reasonably of thinking Whites are superior to minorities.
They accuse him of establishing policies which do not benefit Blacks
(i.e. refusal, pre-1991, to sign quota bills...).

Pizz
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:39:17 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

>No, the currency will be oz (one ounce of gold). We can express value of
>merchandise nad services just in oz. Dollars are not needed.

Ok, but the question is whether the value of gold will be allowed to
fluctuate? When one says "standard" one assumes a constant value,
regardless of whether you express it as dollars, gold certificates
or foobars.

>Caius.

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: normal (please explain)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:22:51 GMT

>> strange how some of you decide that normal is when one doesb't have to 
>> concern oneself with ones taken for granted rights whereas gay people 
>> etc., have to be positively ascribed with rights, pointing out that in 
>> the very moment in which you want to say that they are normal because 
>> they have rights in common with all others, they are not normal because 
>> they are the ones, ie., minorities who
>> have to be positively picked out as having rights. Patronising or what?
>>
>Editor Jim better respond to this post :-) 

Too tough for me?  Don't we have a Grammar Czar around here somewhere?

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:46:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      dull tv etc

>
> While it is true that SOME whites hold the overwhelming amount of
> power, it doesn't imply that ALL whites share in this, let alone that
> all blacks are oppressed.  After all, Cosby has far more power than I
> do.
>
> Let me suggest that racism is a TYPE of bigotry.  Other people use
> "bigotry" on POLITICS-L and they don't always have racism in mind.
>

Andy, that's very true.  I have been talking about racism on a grander
scale than what you have brought up.  I have not denied that blacks
in this country sometimes have more power over whites, and you have
illustrated that there are some situations where they can.  But I
don't believe my overview of racism equalling power and oppression
is negated by your observation.

Ellen
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:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:47:49 -0400
From:         RICK GEORGE <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spike Lee and Racism

>Rick,
>
>     The point about Maaxine Waters calling Bush a racist at the D.N.C.
>is that the leaders of the party, or Clinton himself should have stated
>that they disapprove of that slaanderous remark.  Clearly, Bush haas
>stood up for Clinton before, when he was being attacked on apersonal
>level.
>
>Pizz

Hmmm.  Now I get to speculate as to why Bill Clinton didn't disapprove
of Maxine Waters's remarks.  Maybe he thought it was rhetorical
hyperbole?  Could it be that he thought that it might alienate black
voters if he did?

My memory in regard to the Democratic Convention isn't that good, so
I don't think the best person to help you analyze who did what and
why.  Judging from the traffic on POLITICS, the DNC doesn't seem to
be of interest (you might want to retrieve the archives from the summer
and fall and read the discussions from then).

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:47:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

It is, of course, relevant to note that the news broadcast make it clear
that the report about women and earnings concerned equal work!

If group A makes $10 an hour as highly skilled workers, and group B makes
$7 an hour as unskilled labor, then we don't have an = work for = pay
problem, do we?

Women, in the same jobs, with the same levels of experience, education,
skills, etc, as men, make $.70 to men's $1.00.

That's what's relevant; obscuring the issue won't make it go away.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:35:02 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: new topic

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> The most important thing was to try and prove you ability to attach
> nonexistent claims to your adversary.  Well, as usual it worked with
> KAT.

I am gonna try and prove that I am an equal opportunity person...


Robert Moss (aka Ben Dover) said:

> ...................................  Your attitude embodies exactly what
> must have been present in the death camps.  No, I'm not calling you a
> Nazi.  I am saying that without a moral basis it would be only a small
> step to become one.

(KAT opens his dictionary to "idiot" and writes...)

Robert; you suffer from mental retardation in one of its most
severe forms; you have a mental age of three years or less;
you are an extremely incompetent or foolish person.  No, I'm
not calling you an idiot.  I am saying that you are only a small
step from becoming one.

> ---Robert

--KAT

p.s.  According to the above definitions most children younger
      than three years old are idiots.  Isn't that harsh -- and
      I mean that for a reason other than the obvious.  :-)
From: SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET (waiting for the wolves)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "December 9..."
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:13:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>I could stimulate more discussion, and I try. But, rarely can I
>entice folks to talk about the issues I raise, I DO wonder about
>that! Are they not legitimate to many of you? If that were really so,
>I suspect I'd write a lot less. Are the questions I raise, and the
>issues I explore, too boring to follow up on? I don't think so, but
>maybe such is the case.

Actually, they're neither illegitimate nor boring.  Rather the reverse.
However, and this is the sticking point, I don't know a lot about Russia,
Russian politics, and so forth, and can't really take issue with specifics.
That's one of the reasons I enjoy your posts so much - I feel I learn
something about the place every time I read.

>Just a few thoughts from an ill curmudgeon on a wet and cold night in
>the heartland of the US. Later, VMS

Hope you'll be feeling better soon, Val.

Gary W. Olson                   "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.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 09:58:23 -0500
From:         peas on earth <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: NORMAL

>As I said before there is no strict definition of  NORNAL.
>If you have one, please tell all of us. Maybe we can learn something new.

Perhaps for the sake of shortening this argument (without using crisco)
we might decide that there is a normal variation (diversity) within
any population/area. If there is a group of significant size within a
given population then it is "normal."

For example if I study several groups of white carnations and find that in
each larger group there are about 5% of them that are white with red
coloration blotches near the stem, then I have a predictable trait
and a "normal" variation.

Get it? Good. Homosexual traits are normal.

>Caius.

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU