HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:25:20 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: freedom from discrimination

Brett' offers anecdotal "evidence" of "quotas":

>        A couple of years ago two black police sergeants were promoted to
>leutenant over 14 white police persons who had scored higher on the exam.

Was the exam score the *sole* criterion for promotion? Are there other
considerations, like leadership skills, duration and distiction of
service, etc.?

I would certainly hope that police officers are not promoted to fairly
high level positions based solely on their ability to pass a multiple-
guess test!

>        Two of the white police people sued, and lost.  They each got 93 on the
>tests.  The two that got in because of AA got 70 and 71.  Lower than the other
>14 people trying for the position who didn't get it.
>        Comments?

I am curious, did the Police department attempt to use "AA quota compliance"
as a defense? If so, what did they *believe* that their quota was?

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:25:36 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Impeachment, and the case of the Coxsacker

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

>I wouldn't make too much of this.  Actually they are protected
>from arrest, not prosecution, and then only while in actual
>"Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses," (I'm
>not sure whether that means while actually in chambers or offices,
>or 24 hours a day while Congress is in session), or while traveling
>to or from the session.

I wouldn't make TOO much of this, either. I hope I didn't.

However, Peter has neglected the clause that follows.
"and for any Speech of Debate in either House, they shall not
be questioned in any other Place."

In Powell v. McCormack, an action challenging an exclusion
from the House was dismissed against those of the defendants
who were members of Congress on grounds of this clause.

At Peter's behest, the following.

Originally, impeachment of the president was going to be
restricted to cases of "treason or bribery." Mason objected
to this restriction as too narrow. He wanted to add
"maladministration." Madison said this would be too vague.
They compromised on High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Doar and cohorts concluded that Mason accepted High Crimes
and Misdemeanors because he was confident it included
maladministration. They claimed support from Federalist
Paper 65, which mentions impeachment for "the abuse or
violation of some public trust," and to offense that
are "POLITICAL, as they related chiefly to injuries
done immediately to the society itself."

St. Clair claimed it was significant that "maladministration"
was NOT specifically included.

Sad to say, Cox does not explain exactly why he did not
try to indict Nixon. So I cannot say for sure whether he
thought it was legally impossible, or merely politically
impossible. It may be that he was at the time thinking
that the two kinds of possibility were blurring. In fact,
I am SURE he was worried about that.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:49:42 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Wed,
              6 Jan 1993 15:55:13 EST from jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colora

From:
*** Resending note of 01/06/93 15:20

From Jenna
Yes, i'm aware of THAT. what i wanted to know was whether or not you
thought that divorced people be denied rights that the rest of
us get automatically. Like...........

From Robert
Freedom from discrimination is not a right.  Freedom to choose your
lifestyle may be, but that does not necessarily carry with it any other
rights.  You may choose to be married, single, etc. but that doesn't
mean that I have to rent you an apartment or give you a job.  I still
feel that it isn't government's place to force us to be kind to each
other in the private sector.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:22:39 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: it's a wonderful life
              6 Jan 1993 17:41:08 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>>the effects of second hand smoke in restaurants, malls, on the street,
>>etc. should be negligible.
>
>        "Should be".  Are you willing to bet a large amount of insurance money
>on it?
>
"Should be" was meant to express my lack of data on the issue (the EPA
report wasn't available at the time of that writing :) not the valid
statistical extrapolation of the data.  Stands to reason, though.

>>Unless you (and the EPA) have better data on the effects second hand smoke
>>in spacious areas for brief periods at infrequent intervals, my assertion
>>still stands: Signs that says "No Smoking" might really say "Whites Only".
>
>        I think you're over-reacting.
>
Smokers are a minority that has been relegated to second class citizen-
ship, and the government, via the EPA, has endorsed this demotion.
Unless the EPA report is based on studies of dangers of second hand
smoke in public areas, the only difference between this and racial
segregation is that smokers can (as Brett' knows) change their habits
if they have more will power than God gives many people, while blacks
cannot change their skin color.

>        If you can prove that second-hand smoke is harmless then you can claim
>opression :).
>
Ah, but I hear rumblings that the EPA report is bad science, that 2/3
of the studies on second hand smoke don't substantiate or contradict
the EPA's findings, that the report is motivated more by politics than
protection.  Unless the detrimental effects of second hand smoke in
well ventilated public places is proved (or the EPA report is shown to
have merit) I continue to claim oppression.
    toddddddddd
>Brett'

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Some men will rob you with
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   a six gun, some with a
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    fountain pen." - W GUTHRIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: what makes a good parent?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:06:43 GMT

I don't care to comment upon the suitability of gay couples as
parents.  Quite frankly, I don't have enough valid information
to make such commentary fruitful.

But I'm happy, as always, to comment upon particularly poor reasoning...

The erstwhile Uncle Ernie wrote that heterosexual couples make better
parents.  As I mentioned above, I don't wish to either endorse or dispute
this particular claim.  Instead,  I want to look at one of the responses
to it.

>I think it's the opposite. Hetero marriages can be based on love, but
>not always. Sometimes people live together for other reasons, mostly
>having to do with property rights. Gay couples exist ONLY when there
>is love between the two people. It is always better for children to
>grow up in a loving family. Any disadvantages of growing up in a gay
>family are mostly due to outside factors (homophobia, ect.)
>
>Sam.

It is true that heterosexual marriages may not be based on love, but
rather other reasons (among which are considerations of property,
fear, desperation, etc.).  But it seems just as likely that homosexual
couples may exist for reasons other than love.  Indeed, it seems likely
that many _do_.

The question: does this particular household constitute an environment
appropriate for the raising of children?  is a difficult question.
I would argue, for example, that a ranking of 'better' and 'worse' kinds
of households for the raising of children would rank fundamentalist
Christian households far below homosexual athiest households.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:02:23 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: it's a wonderful life

>A new study has come out on the danger of second hand smoke. If we
>can remove children from a home for parental alcohol abuse during
>pregnancy, can we/should we do the same thing for exposure to second
>hand smoke?
>
Pardon me as I move way off the subject...

Does anybody have any info on the EPA report?  More details of the
findings?  Details of studies used for the report?  Details of where
I can find tales of such details as detailed above?  This thing bugs
me not only because it pushes the bounds of the scope of the EPA,
but also because previous studies that I'm aware of studied second
hand smoke in the home environment (children or spouses of smokers).
I'm leery of extrapolating such data to ban smoking public places,
which have neither the confined area nor the concentration of smoke
as a smoker's as a house.  This may be another attempt at belittling
a segment of society in the same way racial discrimination belittled
people of color in the past.  Smokers are the Negroes of the nineties.
   toddddddddd
>fred

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Some men will rob you with
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   a six gun, some with a
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    fountain pen." - W GUTHRIE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:29:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject: Re: school daze

Brett' says:

>         Clinton has been a supporter of public schools.  Sending his kid to a
> private one thus appears hypocritical.

Quite so.  Clinton also supports school "choice" but only among public schools:
some choice.

Poor and not-so-poor parents are just as concerned about their children's
education as are the Clintons. They are also just as capable of making
good decisions about education.  Why not give them the same ability to
make a choice, through vouchers, refunds, etc.?  Public education's status
as a protected monopoly must be changed in order for real education
reform to take place.

Bush's voucher plan was a good start but since public education
is a highly local "service" it doesn't go far enough.  I would like to have
some way of getting a local tax refund based on average per-pupil expense,
if I don't send my kid to public school. It doesn't have to be 100% - I'd
settle for 70-90% :-).

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:06:03 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: estimating

The boss talking to two of his employees, Tom and Jerry.

The Boss: What do you think guys?  I am thinking of recarpeting
all the common areas in the hotel.  We have about 425000 square
feet and it would cost about $8 for each square yard.  How much
do you think it would cost.

Tom, reaching into his pocket to get a pen and some paper
speaks (too soon) while Jerry is thinking in his head: But
sir, EXACTLY how many square feet of floor do we have and
EXACTLY how much is the carpet gonna cost?

The Boss: What are you talking about?  Are you an idiot?  First
of all I don't have the exact figures right now and second of
all if I wanted the exact figures I would have asked Lester in
purchasing.  The numbers I gave you were all estimates.  So can
you give me an estimate?  Any how, don't you know how to use the
pocket calculator that the company bought for you?  Put away
that pen and paper!

Tom thinking quietly and not saying anything: No sir I am not
an idiot but our school board was harassed frequently buy a
guy named Robert Moss (some people called him Ben Dover, some,
sprgoo) and they eliminated estimating in favor of repeated
calculation by hand.

Jerry: Sir, 425000 square feet is about 5000 square yards, times
8, that is about $40,000.

The Boss: Good job, Jerry.  Now if you can teach Tom that, you
deserve to be promoted to be one of my assistants.

--KAT (more thinking--less repetition--longer school hours--
       longer school year--no summer vacation rather shorter
       more frequent vacations--smaller classes--higher paid
       teachers--shorter work days for teachers)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:53:04 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: school daze

And that, Linda, is why the Japanese are running rings around us.  By the
time a student reaches 5th grade in Japanese schools, he is learning
fractions and percents, has started algebra, and, in many schools, has
started studying English as a second language.  How many 5th graders here
study a second language.

You might try to get your son into a private school.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:49:08 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: school daze
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > Brett' says:
> >
> > > Clinton has been a supporter of public schools.  Sending his kid to a
> > > private one thus appears hypocritical.
> >
> > Quite so. Clinton also supports school "choice" but only among public school
> > some choice.
> >
> > Poor and not-so-poor parents are just as concerned about their children's
> > education as are the Clintons. They are also just as capable of making
> > good decisions about education.  Why not give them the same ability to
> > make a choice, through vouchers, refunds, etc.?
> Aside from the problems of tax money being paid to religious instititutions,
> I can think of a very good reason not to have a voucher plan.  Our
> $400 Billion deficit.  Current estimates hold that to properly fund a
> real school choice plan would cost in the neighborhood of $40 Billion a year.
> Where do you suppose that money should come from?
> >
> > - David
> >
> > David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
> >
>
> Jonathan

******************

  for starters, let's look at these:

  sending social security checks to millionaires

  subsidizing water to give to farmers so they can raise crops which
they sell to the government at grossly inflated prices

  fighting a ludicrous and unwinnable "war on drugs" instead of making
the stuff legal and taxing the $#!+ out of it

  selling things like mineral and timber rights at rock-bottom prices

  paying an army of parasitic bureaucrats to screw us over

  etc.

  besides, look at school choice as an investment in our future . . .
  :)

  rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:19:37 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colora
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>From Robert
>>Adultery and most divorce grounds are against the Word.  Sex (making love)
>>is a gift to heterosexual married couples.  It is also fun.
>>
>
>Yes, i'm aware of THAT. what i wanted to know was whether or not you
>thought that divorced people be denied rights that the rest of
>us get automatically. Like the right NOT to be fired from a job,
>or the right NOT to be refused housing, based on marital status.
>
>THAT was my question.
>jenna

        People don't have a *right* not to be fired.  It's the employer that
doesn't have the *right* to fire you for a decision that doesn't affect your
job.

        A subtle, but important destinction.

        For example: housing.

        If I'm renting a house, but prefer married couples, can I state that
only married couples will be considered?
        Is this denying anyone housing?

        It depends :).  As landlord, I'd say that I had the right to choose
whom I wanted to live in my house.  On the other hand, if there are not any
other choices, then I am denying housing.
        So at what point should the government step in and *force* me to rent
to someone I'd rather not?

        Does this mean I can't kick people out for using drugs?  But what about
when the police come by, flash a RICO warrant, and seize my property because
the tenants were drug dealers?

        Catch-22.

        We walk Occam's razor.

Brett'
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:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:25:50 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: it's a wonderful life

>Pardon me as I move way off the subject...
>
>Does anybody have any info on the EPA report?  More details of the
>findings?  Details of studies used for the report?  Details of where
>I can find tales of such details as detailed above?
>
>   toddddddddd


Today's Wall Street Journal has an article on page B1 entitled "EPA
Declares 'Passive' Smoke a Human Carcinogen"

It is too long to retype, but in the article, William Reilly said that
the report would represent "one of the biggest decisions I will ever
make" (the EPA report is officially to be released tomorrow but the
WSJ got an advance copy).  Reilly feels that the report will substantially
increase the legal liabilities of businesses:  "If you were running
a bar or an airline or a body shop or whatever and you saw your people
smoking or you allowed customers to smoke, you'd be opening yourself up
10 years, 15 years later to lawsuits.  And people would be able to
say that you knew you were exposing us to cancer.  There wasn't any
doubt about the issue.  The government has spoken on the question."

There's a lot more in the article...

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:56:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      A Confused, But Delighted Return

Hmmm ...

I went away, leaving a discussion about the WWF and real "sports."

I return to discussions of the morality of homosexuality !

This list isn't quite what I expected, but I'm not saying that like
it is bad !

Happy new year to all !

P.S. Ruckman Jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM (Jonathan Fisher)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:35:49 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

> I read in the Beacon Journal this morning that Dr. Death himself is
> coming to Ohio because the state legislature has permitted assisted
> suicide.
>
> Comments?
who cares?
>
> Evelyn Duncan
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:16:03 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon

>From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>The question is whether Bush can pardon himself now, even before
>he is impeached.
>
>Well if the Constitution meant to say that, "The President may not
>pardon anyone of an impeachable crime" rather than "...stop
>an impeaching process," then all cases would add up.

I sort of agree. But "an impeachable crime" is too vague. For one
thing, it is a contested issue what crimes are impeachable. For another,
in one sense it is obviously context-dependent. No one can impeach
ME for anything, since I do not hold any relevant office.

>Therefore, Ford can pardon Nixon while Nixon could not do it himself.
>Because the crime was impeachable while Nixon was the president
>but once he resigned, the crime was NOT impeachable any more.  Under
>my scenario, for example, Bush could not pardon Jim Wright before impeachment
>if indeed his crimes were impeachable.

That's a tricky one. I suspect that maybe he could. Wright would have
to resign before impeachment proceedings began, though.

>(I know my version is NOT the Constitution version, but I think mine
>is more logical, Logic Czar?)

I don't know what the Constitutional version really is. I know
what it literally says, but am not sure exactly what it means.

I think that it would be interpreted so as to be logical, though!

>Under the current law, could the
>President pardon someone else of an impeachable crime BEFORE the
>impeachment has started?  Has this EVER happened before?

It has never happened, so far as I know. I am GUESSING that he could,
but that his pardon would be invalid if an impeachment proceeding
began. But if the office-holder resigned before any proceeding,
I think he could get away with it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:42:04 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott

>
>From Robert
>That's Word with a "W" and God with a "G".  Leviticus 18:22 specifically says
>you are not to engage in homosexuality.  If you're not to do it, then you
>evidently have (1) the choice to do otherwise.  It also says the act is an
>abomination (2) perversion.  To go against the Word is (3) a sin.  The
>Bible is the Word so (4) you're against it.

Well, doesn't the biBle say that Adultery, Divorce, Sex for Fun (as
opposed to 'Sex for Procreation') and other assorted pastimes
are also against The worD? Should people who have Sex for
Fun not have the same rights as people who only have Sex
for Procreation?  How about the People Who Mix Cereal in the
Morning? Should They be denied housing because of it?
How about People Who Wear Blended Fabrics?

And that reminds me.  How come it was ok for god and the Devil
to make bets about poor old pitiful and gullible Job, but
gambling is a sin? hmm?

jcs, one of the brown bruces.
From: KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: hi again and help
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:27:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Happy New Year, y'all:
Having set polics nomail for the duration of my vacation, I was shocked and
amazed to find 269 messages waiting for me today!  Thank goodness it's
holiday season!  The first missive was from the listserv@ohstvma, informing
me that I can't set nomail because I'm not signed onto the list.

Is it just me?  Or is something weird going on?  Can anyone explain this,
or at least tell me how I can set nomail in the future?  Private replies
are fine :)

For the record, my break was wonderful.  We had a white Xmas but clear
weather for my flight to CA, my new niece is adorable (she looks just like
my own daughter did at that age), my family's all doing well, and my ex
agreed to pay half cost if I do, in fact, wind up having to send my
daughter to the private Catholic school up the road.  I've hardly glanced
at a newspaper or watched TV, so I'm looking forward to getting back into
the political swing :)

Later,
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU