HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wr001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (william e raftery)
Subject: Re: Judicial Branch
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 10:49:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.045641.18478@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <4f0kFkq00awU95F15q@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>True, but once approved, most judges can't be fired unless they break
>>the law.  
>
>Which is a good reason to oversee the appointments process much more
>closely than the Senate has in the past.
>
>(Of course, when they do, they get accused of an electronic lynching...)
>
>>if public opinion turns against them, they are immune.  
>
>Which is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted.
>
>>Unlike
>>elected representatives.  And when judges like this start using their
>>judicial powers to make laws, they become unstoppable.
>
>Nonsense.  When the Reagan/Bush Supreme Court started narrowing the
>mandate of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Senate passed the 1991 Civil
>Rights Act to reverse the Supreme Court.  The legislative branch has
>quite a bit of oversight over the jurisdictional powers of the lower
>branches of the judicial branch.  The only place where the Supreme
>Court has the final word is the Constitution, and even there, the
>Constitution can be amended if the Supreme Court acts egregiously.
>
>Not to mention the fact that the holders of Article III powers know
>very well that they must stay within certain constraints if the judicial
>branch is to continue to have any legitimacy.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

On top of which, in Article III the Congress also has the power to limit
thecases the Supreme Court can hear when pertaining to certain laws. Though
I am far from a scholar, I seem to remember a case in the 1860's in which
Congress basically put on a bill "The Supreme Court may not hear any case
relating to this law". 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60417 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8683 alt.rush-limbaugh:9814
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 15:25:59 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>
>  Perhaps I've missed the definitive television, print, or usenet
>argument for term limitations, but I remain unconvinced as to
>its merits as well as surprised that so many "conservatives"
>are backing it.

The definitive argument for me is Dan Rostenkowski.  Dan is the Chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee.  As Chairman he has a control of 
appropriations which drive tax policy which drives the economy which drives my
standard of living.  In short, he represents, not just his own constituents
but me as well and I don't like the way he is doing it.  What can I do about
it?  Nothing. As long as he uses his position to buy the votes of 150,000
people in Chicago he can screw the rest of us to the wall.  The same goes for
Robert Byrd of West Virginia who promised to get a billion dollars of Federal
spending for West Virginia if he were reelected and did it in less than a year
through such things as moving federal agencies from Virginia to West Virginia
for no good reason.  Who's paying for his promises?  Nobody who can vote
against him.  If there is another way to make these people responsive to the
country's needs I'm for it, but term limits is the only one being offered at
this point.

>
>Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
>Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
>University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
>Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and
 act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it."
			  
                                      P.J. O'Rourke - A Parliament of Whores

===============================================================================
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60524 ca.politics:9605 misc.legal:20048
From: junikka@schaefer.math.wisc.edu (Jari Junikka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:42:18 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Wisconsin Dept. of Mathematics


kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>Non sequitor.  Proscribing homosexual activity does not pass any legal, moral,
>or other judgement on any person.  It merely bans an activity.  People are
>more than the sum of their actions, and no person is so limited that 
>proscribing an activity denies their humanity.  I realize that many self-
>labelled "homosexuals" would attempt to define themselves entirely in 
>terms of their sexuality, but that is merely a sign of their mental 
>instability.

You don't honestly believe what you wrote, do you?
Let's say that the "evil homosexual lobby" succeeds to attain
power and prohibits heterosexual acts. I assume that you have 
nothing against this? Only allowed sexual acts between people
of the opposite sex are those intended to produce children.
Some gay men would volunteer (as they do today) to help their
lesbian friends.

I assume that your humanity hasb't been denied?

>>Your argument process lacks
>>the ability to construct anything meaningful. Oh it is just too damn bad that
>>society says you can't be or do this.  Boy I would love to know if you ever
>>have childern- and one of them turns out to be gay and when they go up and
>>accept themselves, someone comes along and says 'You are trash, evil, garbage
>>and don't deserve to live'- then they kill themselves.  Would you be happy???
>>You great society will have done its duty... right?

>The situation you describe would, of course, be reprehensible.  However,
>if society said to my son/daughter "The action you have taken is wrong
>and detrimental to society" I would have no choice but to agree.  I love
>my children, but that love requires me to point out wrong action.

The situation would be reprehensible!!! Do you realize that that is exactly
what is going on right at his moment. A gay, bisexual, or lesbian teenager
is three times as likely to commit suicide as their heterosexual peer due
to exactly the type of oppression and intimidation described above.

All you can say is too bad? Just maybe we should try to change the society.

>My point is that the gay person can no more attack the straight person for
>attempting to outlaw homosexuality than a child molester can attack both
>for outlawing child molestation.

And why not? Can you distinguish a voluntary action from a coerced one?

jari
From: RSE32195@VAX1.UTULSA.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton's health care plan
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:23:17 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Would someone please send me a copy of Clinton's health care plan/proposal?
I have seen it posted before but didn't save it.

Thanks!  

Stefan Radloff
University of Tulsa
rse32195@vax1.utulsa.edu


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60763 ca.politics:9662
From: carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:25:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>>cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>>carlos@spanky.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Carlos Carrion) writes:
>>>>> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>>>># #Shall I repost the many postings from soc.motss trying to justify
>>>># #adults having sex with 12 and even 8 year olds?
>
>>>># 	Don't have to.
>>>># 	There are people here in this newsgroup that find it acceptable
>>>># 	to be sexually attracted to 11 year old girls...
>
>>>>There are?  They are pretty depraved, aren't they?
>
>>>That sort of depends.  Do they have a choice, or is it
>>>biological/hereditary?  If it's b/h, then no, they aren't depraved.
>
>>	"Mr Nieport, I sure would like to out with your 11 year old
>>	daughter... and maybe fuck her!"
>
>>	"My god, you are a PERVERT!  Get out of here!"
>
>>	"Actually, no.  It's biological/hereditary..."
>
>>	"Hmmm... sorry my mistake.  Be back by eleven"
>
>If you had a brain, you'd read what I wrote.  "Depraved," to me, implies
>that you've chosen to do something sick and perverted.  If your

	Ahhh... An after the fact explanation of what you meant.  How
	convenient...
	Spin Doctors anyone??

	depraved means something/someone that is "marked by corruption or evil".
	I'd say molestation of 11 year old girls falls within this category...
	regardless of whether the perpetrator meant it or not...

>attraction to young girls is not your choice, I don't think it's
>"depraved."  That doesn't mean that I'd favor allowing people to *act*
>on that attraction.
>
>>>Now, if they actually molest 11 year old girls, then they should be
>>>jailed.  But to be *attracted* to 11 year old girls?  That isn't depraved,
>>>necessarily, no.
>
>>	yeah, right.
>>	Add one more to the list...
>
>Like Clayton, you seem to have a tough time distinguishing between an
>orientation and an action.  
>
>The attraction is probably not under the person's control, which means 
>there isn't anything wrong with it.  *Acting* on that attraction is wrong.
>
>What list?  The list of people who are capable of something besides a
>knee-jerk reaction to a question?  Or is it "people who disprove
>Clayton's gay-bashing child molestation theory?"  

	"Clayton's gay-bashing child molestation theory" ???
	Interesting segue.

	Let's try this:
	the list of people who DON'T see anything wrong with being sexually
	attracted to 11 year old girls...
	ooooo... sorry, except when it is not one's choice... yeah that's the
	ticket...

	yeah right...

carlos.

"Negro Equality! Fudge!" - Abraham Lincoln
      ...ames!elroy!jpl-devvax!{beowulf|pituco}!carlos
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: LBJ's anti-nepotism law (was: Hillary will not...)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:40:49 GMT

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>This is interesting... I'd like to see the text of this law, and I'd
>especially like to see how it's constitutional.  After all, Article

If the President appoints a relative, there will be more controversy.
Because of the increased controversy, there will be increased sale
of newspapers.  This will lead to an increase in demand for newsprint.
Newsprint is shipped interstate.  Thus, the interstate commerce clause
makes the law constitutional. :-)

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women,soc.men,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Misogyny gay and straight
Keywords: hippocrapy
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:07:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.193241.17305@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <13179@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
>writes:
>
>>I never cease to be amazed at how:
>
>>3. how often homosexual men in soc.motss insist on childish
>>insults based on the assumption that women are inferior.  (Like
>>the example above).
>
>What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black.  Vast
>numbers of heterosexual men are constantly making childish insults
>based on the notion that women are inferior.  Also based on the notion
>that homosexuals are inferior.  This is so obvious it is a stereotype.

I do not see a real correlation between these two paragraphs.


>>Of course, the misogyny of male homosexuals isn't surprising,
>>if you simply interpret it as the response of someone filled
>>with self-loathing about their efforts to fulfill (at least
>>occasionally) a role that the male homosexual regards as "female."
>
>This presumes women are inferior in order to conclude male homosexuals
>are inferior.  

Not really. What the original poster said was: That male homosexuals 
REGARD as female.
So, he is not giving his own idea about women, but he is presenting his
idea about how homosexuals regard women.
His comment, even if wrong, has nothing to do with his idea about women.


>-- 
>     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
>               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

AAP
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 18392@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.080701.15087@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>>Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
>>earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?
>
>Because, of course, she isn't.
>
>Hill's conservativism was a convenient lie at the time of the Thomas
>hearings.  Now that it is no longer necessary it is being dropped.

What evidence do you have that this was a lie?  The fact is that she was a
conservative, and that is what got her the job at the EEOC in the first place.
She became a protege of Thomas.  She might not have been super conservative on
racial issues, but most black conservatives are not.  Why do you say that it is
now "being dropped"?  Who is dropping it?

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60591 ba.politics:7206 ca.politics:9619
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton's bogus numbers
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:47:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <13187@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#and it also pointed to the
#strong correlation between childhood sexual abuse and adult
#homosexuality.  Posting tomorrow about it.

I've always wondered if any of these "studies" take into account that
anyone open enough to admit to being homosexual is more likely to
admit to being molested as a child.

#Why?  You don't deny that NAMBLA marches.  Gay Perot supporters,
#however, were prohibited.

What proof of this do you have?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Entreprise Zones
Date: 21 Nov 92 12:56:49 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

peterd@polari.online.com writes:

>wix@eskimo.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:
>
>>In article <BxnyFv.4nD@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>>In article <Bxn8ox.KKz@acsu.buffalo.edu> v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case) writes:
>>>...
>>>>But, as Michael Kinsley has pointed out, the whole idea of enterprise zones 
>>>>is inherently unconservative. The government is trying to get capital to go 
>>>>where it doesn't want to. This sounds like-industrial policy! ...
>>>
>>>    "Economist" called enterprise zones "the Republican version of big
>>>    goverment waste".  I tend to agree.
>>>
>>Sound like a good description to me.  The people that live in the
>>"enterprise zones" don't have the skills needed  to get many of
>>the new jobs.  Oh, a janitor or two, and maybe some jobs on the
>>loading dock.  But the best jobs will be taken by people
>>commuting _in_ from the suburbs!  The people that need the jobs
>>and the training will not benefit much, if at all.  But we
>>will be subsidizing some very nice new facilities for a few
>>businesses.
>>              
>Sounds like racism to me: the people in the 'zones'
>don't have the skills, training or ability to handle
>complicated tasks.   Right.

Racism?  Gimme a break.  The guy said that people in the enterprise zones 
didn't have the skills needed, he didn't say that they weren't
trainable.

Since race didn't enter into the discussion until your 
ridiculous charge of racism, I suggest that you were out of line.

Although blanket statements are probably a dangerous thing,
I think it is both reasonable and accurate to say that the
people enterprise zones are designed to help are not, in
general, the best educated or best trained workers in America - if 
they were they would already be working.

That says nothing about their inherent abilities, and charges
of racism are inflammatory and aren't constructive.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton denies being in the loop
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:13:45 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Nov16.032115.24586@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp  
(Michael Friedman) writes:
> In article <Bxr67q.71r@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W  
Roby) writes:
> 
>>Why would Walsh, a Republican,conspire with a Democratic campaign  
committee? 
>>What's the motivation?  Did EVERYONE want Bush out of office?  :-)
> 
> Walsh hates Bush's guts.  He
> and his subordinates feel that Bush has been dicking them arround
> since day one.  [...] At
> this point it isn't political.  It's personal.

Aside from this, Walsh has only nominal day-to-day involvement in the  
process.  He's 81 and doesn't reside full-time in the Washington area. The  
work on the Weinberger indictment was done by a Clinton campaign  
contributor.

It would be interesting to hear the outcry if there had been a release of  
new Clinton draft material three days before the election.  Let alone one  
that had Republican fingerprints all over it.

--
Don McGregor | Life is like high school, only with money and guns.
drm@esl.com  |
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Call for Radical Tax Simplification
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:24:12 GMT

In article 11559@mercury.cair.du.edu, ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>In article <jbone.721499722@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>>
>>(some text deleted)...
>>has become.  Sure, you can hire somebody --- but that is symptomatic of
>>the problem at hand!  I certainly don't mind paying taxes (much), but I
>>mind the headache and inconvenience considerably!
>>
>>(some text deleted)...
>
>>Use your voice - call your senator/rep:  radical tax simplification and
>>reform is needed NOW.
>>
>>
>>My $0.02,
>>
>I agree whole-heartedly with radical tax simplification and reform
>NOW!  I think the Libertarian Party has the ultimate answer to this:
>get rid of the IRS.  You know, the IRS, they make money the old-
>fashioned way... they steal it!
>
>My $0.02.  Hey, that's $0.04 already, this could develop into
>something big.
>
>-- 

but H&R Block makes $11Billion/year.  looks like y'all are going
to outspent in the lobbying arena:(

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Pre/Post New Deal (social demographics)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:38:23 GMT

	Numbers from Bureau of the Census
	Income levels by fifths of population.(%)

Year	Lowest	   Second	Third	  Fourth     Highest	Top
	Fifth	   Fifth	Fifth	  Fifth	     Fifth	5% 

1929	-----12.5--------	13.8	   19.3	      54.4	30
1935	4.1	    9.2		14.1	   20.9	      51.7	26.5
1941	4.1	    9.5		15.3	   22.3	      48.8	24
1944	4.9	    10.9	16.2	   22.2	      45.8	20.7
1946	5.0	    11.1	16	   21.8	      46.1	21.3
1947	5.0	    11		16	   22	      46	20.9
1950	4.8	    10.9	16.1	   22.1	      46.1	21.4
1952	4.9	    11.4	16.6	   22.4	      44.7	20.5
1954	4.8	    11.1	16.4	   22.5	      45.2	20.3
1956	4.8	    11.3	16.3	   22.3	      45.3	20.2
1958	4.7	    11		16.3	   22.5	      45.5	20
1960	4.6	    10.9	16.4	   22.7	      45.4	19.6
1962	4.6	    10.9	16.3	   22.7	      45.5	19.6
1964	4.2	    10.6	16.4	   23.2	      45.5	20


	Although people will interpret different things from this,
I think the only thing that we can all agree is that the New Deal 
created a middle class that didn't exist before the 29' Stock Market crash
brought so many wealthy down to their knees.

Garrett@Ingres.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61282 misc.legal:20289
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Term Limits & "Encumbant Ballot Access Limits"
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:14:16 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Nov21.171651.16579@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu said:

> To be fair to the Supreme Court, Hawaii's ballot access requirements
> were close to minimal, and anyone who couldn't meet them had no
> business running for office in the first place.  I'm against ballot
> access restrictions also, but I don't think what Hawaii had could
> reasonably be called a restriction.  (I'm not sure whether all
> parties were required to collect the few dozen signatures or so, or
> just third-parties, the former being preferable, but still...)

No argument with your analysis, but I'm still miffed that the Court
even allowed this much of a restriction, especially without (as far as
I know) also placing a definite limit on how restrictive such laws
could be.  The Court had the opportunity to slam the door completely
shut on this type of nonsense and not only failed to do so but also
failed to give any indication that they think that there should be any
door in place at all.  Grumble, gritch, natterfranz... (Hey, y'know,
these sour grapes aren't half-bad, once you get used to the taste! :-)

> As for your suggestion of banning ballots and just counting write-in
> votes this is an expensive proposition.  Take a look at misspellings
> on the net (a place where I'd say the average person is of above
> average skills) sometimes, and multiply that by a factor of a
> millions, for each of the three hundred or so offices one finds on a
> typical Cook County election ballot.

Well, obviously the simple solution is just to ban Cook County.  I'm
sure nobody would really mind. :-)

But seriously, folks... yes, it would be an expensive proposition, but
I don't see that as a killing point -- the business of government
entails a lot of processes that are expensive but nonetheless
necessary (as well as a _lot_ that aren't necessary at all, but that's
another matter entirely).  I guess that my position is that if you're
going to do something at all, you should do it right, and in my
opinion doing democracy "right" includes giving each voter the power
to cast a valid vote for whomever he or she pleases.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61385 talk.politics.drugs:7536