HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:25:28 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The rantings of the right-wing.
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         The situation in Haiti has "changed" due to the President Elect's
 naiv
>> statements.  He might as well have gone to Brownsville and said "we're not
>> going to turn back any more Mexicans".
>
>There is a difference. The Mexicans have a history of 'economic
>migration.' That means, since Mexico has few jobs, they go north.
>Haiti does not have that tradition. There was no massive flow of
>Haitians out of Haiti until the current mob of militarist Tonton
>Macoutes came to power.

        More Mexicans come because all they have to do is cross a river (in
most places).
        Crossing between Haiti and Florida is a bit more difficult.  Plus, the
Dominican Republic has absorbed about 1 million Haitians over the decades.
        In any event, it's Clinton's words that have increased the boat
bulding.

>>         And the resulting stampede is merely "a change in the situation"?
>
>Bull.
>
>>         Anyone with foresight could see what his statements would cause.  Now
>> he has been forced to backpeddle.  Not because the "situation has changed"
 but
>> because he changed the situation.
>
>He changed the situation, but the situation was grossly unfair.

        Yes, it is.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't examine the ramifications
of our actions.  A burning building is certainly a dangerous place.  Do we rush
in?  Depends on the situation and the likelyhood of success.

        Haiti is smoldering.  Do we fan the flames?  Throw water on it?  Chop
wood?  If we don't think through our plan to "help", we may just be igniting
the flames.

        The one solution that appears (to me :) to be optimal is to raise the
standard of living in Haiti so that people don't want to leave.  Of course
restoring democracy is a necessary step.
        This is the solution that Salinas has for Mexico.  Mexico will become a
place where you can earn a decent living so people will no longer go north.  If
he succeds, we'll have a nice model for the rest of the developing world.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:31:07 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>
>>        As they should have.  "A criminal, having exhausted all other appeal
>>routes, can not use a new claim of innocence to stay an execution or obtain
>>another trial."  Would certainly be fair. It is a rule that a plea of "guilty"
>>can not be changed once given, isn't it? Or am I  watching too much LA Law? :)
>>
>>        Specifically about Hererra:
>>        Now, material evidence is another matter.  As far as I know, all that
>>can be produced at this point are non-impartial witnesses and hearsay.
>>
>
>It seems that somehow you are not willing to face the
>ruling.  The ruling did NOT just say that a claim of
>innocencee cannot be made (I believe that that already
>is not allowed if your appeals have been exhausted) but

        (That was simply a hypthetical "law")

>rather NEW EVIDENCE cannot be introduced.  (To be more
>precise it allowed the states not to admit new evidence
>if they didn't wanted to.)

        Hmmm, I hadn't hear that.  To be more specific, I had heard that the
ruling merely stipulated a new appeal need not be granted because of a claim of
innocence.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:29:40 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Zoe what's the story?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Speaking of the CTT, am I the only one who noticed that Curious George
>the Greek explained the problem with the whole mess by saying that
>"The transition process erred."?

        Speaking of George (the semi-bearded one), will someone please mail him
a razor?  Or at least point him to the edged end.
        Shades of Nixon's 5 o'clock partner.

>Schuster.  (Late Night Fans:  You suppose he'll get to meet Meg?)

        She is looking for a new job since her appearances with Dave will soon
end.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:39:03 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>to which you replied:
>>        New evidence, yes.  But not necessarily a claim of innocence.  Ted
>>Bundy was claiming that at the end also.
>
>I think I must be missing something.  I can understand that a person cannot
>just say "I'm innocent" and base an appeal on that.  But this guy claims to
>have evidence (one eye-witness related to the alleged other perpetrator and
>three corroborating witnesses).  Isn't that new evidence that should be
>heard?

        Yes and no.  It depends on the witnesses and circumstances.  For
example, a son saying "my dad told me he did it" would not be enough.  (It's
simply hearsay.)  However, if there is a witness who passes the tests of
reliability, then it should.
        However, in the case of Hererra, the fact that he originally pleaded
guilty, and used every other appeal process, and waited until his brother was
dead...it just smacks of opportunism.

        But I agree that new evidence warrents a new trial, or at least a
judicial review to determine whether a new trial is needed.

        If the SC has ruled that new evidence != new trial/hearing then I too
think the ruling is a bid oderifous.

>>        After all, why would anyone plead guilty *knowing* they could get the
>>death sentance, and then wait until their execution was near to claim
>>innocence?
>
>How about bad legal advice from court-appointed lawyers with no criminal
>experience?  It's been known to happen.  How about it took a while for new
>evidence to be obtained?  I don't know that these apply in this case, of
>course.  Heck, the guy could be lying through his teeth.  But to dismiss
>his claims because "they're too surreal" doesn't seem very reasonable.

        Maybe I'm just jaded :).

>I guess I just worry that, in the interest of "closing loopholes" and
>"streamlining the review process" (to save money), we're losing sight of
>the larger issue of justice in light of human error -- how many safeguards
>is enough?
>
>Kerry

        Personally, I'm not in favor of the death penalty--unless you have
witnesses or a confession--for these reasons.  Now a confession being recanted
muddies the waters....

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:53:11 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

Interesting comparison...Cuomo and Clarence...

But I thought Cuomo was a back-stabbing, deal-breaking power-broker
who would have run for President if the Mafia had let him.

Aside from which, if he was on the Court, he wouldn't be able
to spend much time on his favorite sport: personally calling up
journalists to threaten and harrass them.

Funny how Mario was telling us about how "courageous" Clinton was for
saying he would raise taxes...right up until Bill allowed as how
Mario Cuomo would make a fine Supreme Court Justice.  From then on, no
more tax talk out of Mario.

But, hey boys and girls, wouldn't it be nice for a change to have a
judicial appointment that *wasn't* a political payoff?  (Come to think
of it, it might be nice to see *any* kind of job handed out by Clinton
that wasn't just a payment for services rendered.)

And while I'm thinking about it, does it occur to anyone that the
"task force" looks a lot like the administration and a bunch of
FOBs?



--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:17:30 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court decision
              25 Jan 1993 16:43:00 EST from <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>

Peter:

No, I'm not joking.  I'm talking about people being spit on, shoved,
and threatened with death.  It happened in DC last week.

In Los Angeles, arms were broken, pregnant women were punched,
and people arrested were strip-searched and molested.

In Buffalo, ministers were beaten up.  One had lit cigarettes ground
into his skin by counter-protesters.  Also, men and women kneeling
for prayer were screamed at and beaten.

In Cleveland 2 years ago, two women were run over by a 4-wheel drive.
Deliberately.

In Wichita, beer bottles were thrown from speeding cars at 12-year old
kids.

Don't quote news reports at me.  I was there.  This is my research,
and my field of expertise.  If you want to argue facts, fine.

I don't want to argue about abortion.  I've just about given up the
idea that evidence has any meaning in this debate.  If you want to
be pro-choice and stand on that side of the question, without
bothering to find out anything about your opponents you can't get from
the 6-o'clock news, fine.

But don't assume you have all the facts.  You have the argument, but
not the evidence.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:03:15 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Stick a fork in her
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Zoe, that is.

        If (a big if at this point) it reached the floor, look for her to go
down in flames.  Senators are receiving many, many complaints about her illegal
hirings and the fact that she was making $500k a year while she did it.

Brett'
(Looks like Clinton is reaping the anti-rich crops from the seeds he sowed
during the campaign.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:19:26 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The rantings of the right-wing.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >> Let me give one example.  Clinton criticized Bush's policy
> >> of repatriating Haitians without a hearing.  He said said
> >> that he would not do the same thing.  Now he is promising
> >> that he would do exactly that.

> >There is an example.  Clinton did say early on that he would allow
> >the Haitians to stay temporarily in the US until the situation in
> >Haiti was resolved.  But, one could argue (as I am doing now), that
> >the situation in Haiti has changed.  There is a significant portion

>         The situation in Haiti has "changed" due to the President Elect's naiv
> statements.  He might as well have gone to Brownsville and said "we're not
> going to turn back any more Mexicans".

There is a difference. The Mexicans have a history of 'economic
migration.' That means, since Mexico has few jobs, they go north.
Haiti does not have that tradition. There was no massive flow of
Haitians out of Haiti until the current mob of militarist Tonton
Macoutes came to power.

>         And the resulting stampede is merely "a change in the situation"?

Bull.

>         Anyone with foresight could see what his statements would cause.  Now
> he has been forced to backpeddle.  Not because the "situation has changed" but
> because he changed the situation.

He changed the situation, but the situation was grossly unfair.

> Brett'

I'll respond to the rest later.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:08:37 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:20:48 EST Jamie said:

>>If we were talking about PEOPLE seeking to eat
>>ice-creams, I would have agreed with you 100%.
>>However, how about denying ice-cream to only blacks?
>
>?
>That would obviously be a classification on the basis of race.

And the case at hand would not be classification based on
sex?

??

OK ho about denying some services to people with afro
hair style (which ar mainly blacks) or to people with
a piece of cloth on their head -- I forgot the name --
(that would be Jews).  Would those be classifications
based on race and religion, respectively?  Then I don't
understand why singling out women seeking abortion is not
classification based on sex.  Please explain a bit more
slower?

>This was essentially O'Connor's argument. Congratulations.

And as Tim knows I didn't even read the opinion.   :-)
>
>Jamie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:27:54 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > > >uhh, I don't think so.  By 'tracking', these units are in fact turning
> > > >on their radar.  With their radar turned on, it is a simple matter to
> > > >push a button and launch missles.  You don't launch missles until your
> > > >radar is on.  These planes are only acting in self-defense.

> > No, you are not quite correct there. What you are talking about
> > is having the radar assemblages spinning around, "let's see what
> > is out there." What (if I heard correctly) happened was the radar
> > was specifically looking at the planes, the radar held a track,
> > and a little light and and a little buzzer started saying to the
> > pilots "someone could fire a missile at you and you'd be dead."

> Right.  I guess that I phrased my sentences poorly.  There is
> passive and active tracking.  Passive tracking happens all the time and
> you don't even have to have a weapon system attached to your radar.
> Active tracking is what happens immediately before a missle launch.

Which is, unless I have been misinformed, what happened to the jet
in question.

> > > > (condensed) seeing a missile is paramount to being dead already

> > > (condensed) what about the rest of the world? we spy on them,
> > > so why don't they fire on us, or us on them?


> > 1) a SR-71, for example, does not have weaponry. Few spy planes do,
> >    as the cameras are very bulky, carrying all those telephotos and
> >    all. As such, they cannot bomb the radar sites.
> > And, by the way, a good jet can go about Mach3, maybe. Missiles
> > go up to Mach 4, with *MUCH* better maneuverability. If you can
> > eyeball a missile, you are dead. Simple as that.

> And don't forget that there are serious rumors that the USAF has developed
> a super top-secret very high-speed plane. They say that this plane can
> go MACH 6.  Yes, I said MACH 6!  If such is the case, then they can just
> outrun those missles.

1) Why would they want to do that? They already fly so high no SAM
   could hit them.

2) Why would we want to do that? Fast planes are notorious fuel-hogs
   and need constant maintainance. A spy satellite, compared to the
   time and energy necessary to design, build, train pilots for, train
   mechanics for, refuel and keep secure a new spyplane, is a deal.

> > > -T.
> > Dave
> Jonathan

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:06:42 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Deja vu?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 21, 93 9:55 am

>
> A recent article in NETWORK NEWS, a computer network user's magazine,
> had an article entitled "User's Take Aim at Clinton Appointment".
> The article was about Ronald Plesser (I think?), the Clinton
> appointee to lead the technology/sciences part of the Cabinet.
>
> The article goes on to explain that Clinton is opposing legislation
> that would give public access to government databases on the grounds
> that it would hurt the private sector service-providers of such
> information.  The Bush administration has always opposed that
> legislation, on the grounds that it would hurt the private sector
> service-providers of such information.
>
> Also, on Day Two of the Clinton Presidency, we still have no economic
> plan-- as was promised for Day ONE.
>
> Between the promises he breaks and the Bush Administration positions
> he retains, I guess that Bill Clinton might not be such a bad
> President after all.  I mean, he's just pulling a Dana Carvey...
>
>                 ...impersonating George Bush... or trying anyway.
>

Actually, I think Bill Clinton IS George Bush in disguise. Think about it.
Running against himself in the election - he wins either way!

>
> -Stan

- Dan
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Shortest Presidency
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:19 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93012109391316@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  Alan Stein <STEIN@UCONNVM.BITNET> writes...
>My daughter came up with a question about the shortest presidency that
>perhaps someone here has an answer to.  When she mentioned it, I seemed
>to remember reading in some article about political oddities a discussion
>about the possibility of someone being president for a few hours between
>the end of the term of one president and the inauguration of another,
>ie either the vice president or the speaker of the House technically
>being president for a very brief period.

Well, in 1848 the Senate the inauguration was rescheduled from Mar. 4 to Mar. 
5 beause the 4th was a Sunday.  Unfortunately, at the time, the presidential 
term of office technically ended on Mar. 3, so for Mar. 4, the line of 
succession was unofficially invoked.  With no Vice President (his term had 
expired also), the President pro tempore of the Senate, David Rice Atchison,
was next.  As it turned out, Atchison was exhausted from a late-night session
on March 3, so he told his housekeeper that he was not to be disturbed before
he went to bed that night.  He woke up on Mar. 5, having slept through his
entire "term".  Atchison's grave states that he was the 12th President of the
United States.

							Dan, ad nauseum
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Gays in the military -- political cartoons
Date: 28 Jan 1993 10:05 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Another one:

An officer standing at a military cemetary with a sheet of paper:  "Now hear
this.  All those who were homosexual are expelled from the military."

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:31:36 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military

What crisis do you forsee arising(or even being possible)
in the near future(our lifetime) that would require
a "real" military?

I don't think that any of the things the US military is
doing right now would qualify.

I ask this because the only situation which I think
would justify a large military right now is the threat
of an invasion of the continental US.

jbc
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:06:53 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Reflections on the Isareli situation ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Yes, but, one (such as Israel) cannot continually claim a moral
superiority in the international realm while continuously clamping
down on a group of people who have the audacity to be angry after
having their land arbitrarily taken from them by an international body
they had no say in creating.
        This is not to say that the PLO and all its splinter groups have the
right to carry on their own particualr reign of terror... Hell no!   But the
govt. of Israel is simply taking the easy way out in peace negotiations
by claiming (by implication) that all Palestinians are spoken for by the
PLO...  The time has come for an Israeli govt. that has the balls to
actually deal with these people - the Palestinians that is - or finally
forfeit some of their moral standing...
        By the way, if there's a person out there who'll imply that I'm
some kind of anti-semite in sheep's clothing, take me on man, you'll
find I'm not so easy to pidgeonhole...
                                        Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:42:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shortest Presidency
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> My daughter came up with a question about the shortest presidency that
> perhaps someone here has an answer to.  When she mentioned it, I seemed
> to remember reading in some article about political oddities a discussion
> about the possibility of someone being president for a few hours between
> the end of the term of one president and the inauguration of another,
> ie either the vice president or the speaker of the House technically
> being president for a very brief period.
>
> Does anyone recall anything like that ever happening?

There was a case (don't recall details) where the inauguration was
postponed by a day because the incoming President didn't want to take
office on a Sunday, but nobody was actually sworn in on the odd day.
The shortest official term was Willian Henry Harrison, who got sick
while making a long inaugural address and died about a month later.
Personally, I think that was the major incentive for Clinton to shorten
his speech yesterday :-).

Best,
Peter

>   Alan H. Stein                stein@uconnvm.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU