HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 24 Dec 1992 12:21:40 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: left-right origin revisited
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        I believe the French are also the reason some people refer to "upper"
and "lower" houses of the legislature.  Their different sectors (landed nobles,
appointed people, etc.) were actually seated in areas of differing height
within the same building.

        And another thing, the "fourth estate" also harkens back to French
political processes.

        If ur interested in such things, a book on French politics (1750-post
Napoleon) will be interesting reading for you.

Brett'
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]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:22:49 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      kids
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>>>> > 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.
>
>Yes, really, they can.
>
>I said that anyone who bothers to THINK about it will see that it is
>false. I suppose I should have said, Anyone who bothers to think
>about it and is not abysmally ignorant.

Anyone who bothers to think knows that:

BIsexuals can have, HOMOsexuals cannot. Right? I'm not an expert.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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, 31 Dec 1992 12:38:00 EST
From:         WKIMLER@DREW.DREW.EDU
Subject:      Presidential Pardon
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Just a quick question for the New Year!

        If President Bush is investigated and convicted on the Iran-
Contra affair before Inauguration Day, can he pardon himself?

                                just wondering...

                                        Bill
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:15:06 GMT

Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:

[...]
>As far as having no *tangible* victims, what of
> ... extremely high risk of AIDS?  Are we to count
>these as, no doubt Sam does, *extra* blessings from God?

Lesbian women are less likely than hetrosexuals to have sexually
transmitted diseases such as AIDS. Thus, I doubt that diseases rates
are really your criteria.

It seems that you believe housing and employment discrimination should
be used to save people. If this is so, you must, it seems, support
housing and employement discrimination based on religious belief.
After all, such discrimination might save a Jew, Catholic, or Mormon
from going to Hell.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics,bit.listserv.psycgrad,bit.listserv.qualrs-l
From: faype@bcvms.bc.edu
Subject: *** PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY!!! ***
Organization: Boston College
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:22:30 GMT

****************************************************************
*                  REQUEST FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS             *
*                STUDY ON SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE            *
*                BOSTON COLLEGE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK          *
****************************************************************

*********************  I NEED YOUR HELP !!!!! ******************

My name is Peter Fay and I'm a graduate student in clinical
social work at Boston College and I am asking survivors of child
sexual abuse to be volunteers to fill out a questionaire on sexual 
abuse.  You will be helping a research project find out more about 
sexual abuse, how it affects people and how to recover from it.  As 
a clinician and survivor, I have a vested interest in helping expand the
inadequate knowlege base on abuse and recovery in order to help 
survivors.

*********************** CONFIDENTIALITY ************************

All information will be kept under lock and key and not accessible
through any computer network.  No identifying information will 
be kept with questionaire responses.  All information will be
sent through U.S. Mail, and responses will be anonymous.  All work
will be overseen by Dr. Nancy Veeder, School of Social Work,
Boston College.  

I was a "founding member" the alt.sexual.abuse.recovery newsgroup 
and set up the first anonymous posting service two years ago and 
had no breaches of security or anonymity while I ran it.

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

To volunteer to fill out the questionaire (or for more info),
please send me your name, address (and if possible phone #). You
may contact me through mail, e-mail or phone.  Thank you.

                      Peter Fay
                      7 North Bend Road
                      Worcester, MA 01602, USA
                      (508) 757-3125

                      E-mail: 
                         Internet: faype@bcvms.bc.edu
                         Bitnet:   faype@BCVMS
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]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:50:42 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      accepted termninology ?
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

james p mcbride
>You appear to have very simplistic definitions.  "Conservative" does not
>exclusively mean "support for free-market".  Indeed, I would almost prefer to
>use the term "Manchester Liberals", because it was a group of Liberal (note:
>NOT 'l'iberal economists who developed the free-market theory which Thatcher
>and Reagan adopted to their own use during the 1980's.

Look what has happened to the terminology (to our ideals):

classical meaning                          "widely accepted" term now
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

liberal=free market supporter              liberal=socialist

democracy=Montesqieu's executive,          democracy=dictatorship of the
        legislative, juridical powers      "minorities" (gay etc)

freedom to possess, to work                freedom to earn, have home etc.

equal citizen rights                       "rights" for minorities

conservatives=supporters of                conservatives=communists in Moscow
       tradition of free market

rightists=cons, laisse-fairists            rightist=nazis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you understand, now, why Caius fights for our terminolgy?


laisser-faire is the last term I have, but it is under attack now.


Conservatives support free market *because* it is traditional and just.
Manchester Liberals support free market *because* it is free and effective.

Caius, and many other people, support free market for all four reasons above.


Classical Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:22:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Cross controversy?

> *another* reason to let them excersize their constitutional rights.....that
> way you know what these groups are about, what they're going for, and you ju
> may be able to use *them* to arm yourself (intellectually) and your children
> against their kind of bull.
>
> -linda

Really.  The real danger is letting these people >whisper< things to your
kids, not >shout< at them.  Let them march, let them demonstrate, let them
put on their freak shows, and let everybody stare.  Obviously, some people
are going to be moved by that kind of thing; but imagine how much more
destructive it would be if they were forced to go underground to spread
their crap around.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:09:24 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!

>From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
>
>The Sunday Washington Post was full of commentary on the pardons, mostly negati
>ve.  One pundit ascribed it to Bush's trying to curry favor with the conservati
>ves of the GOP.  An interesting legal point is the pardons potentially increase
>Bush's vulnerability as Weinberger et al cannot plead the Fifth Amendment in re
>fusing to answer questions now that they're pardoned.
>Uncle Ernie

Hah! I made that interesting point three weeks ago. Thank you, thank you.

I saw William Safire's column about the pardons today. He had this
interesting angle.

White House Counsel Boyden Grey essentially got the pardons for Cap & Co.
He also effectively prevented a special prosecutor appointment for
Iraqgate. Yet, he insisted on a special prosecutor for investigating
the GOP inspection of Clinton's records. Why? Did he think the
prying into Clinton's past was more important?

Safire speculates that Grey was largely motivated by hatred for,
and rivalry with, James Baker. Baker alone stood to be embarassed
by the exposing the invasion of Clinton's privacy. In the other
two cases, Grey was trying to cover the president's butt.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:03:29 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold - money qualities

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>
>"Why gold?" you ask.
>
>[Here are the qualities money should have:]
>-portability
>-indestructibility
>-homogeneity
>-divisibility
>-cognizability
>-relative stability of value compared to other commodities

Oh, ok, NOW we're getting somewhere!

I like all of these desiderata except one. I don't know what
the last one means.

As I understand it, commodities have two kinds of value: use value,
and exchange value. The use value of water is quite stable relative
to other commodities. But it's exchange value (that's the same as
market value) varies a whole lot, depending mostly on supply.

I don't see why money has to have ANY use value. In fact, it seems
to me an advantage to have money that has NO use value. (Except
maybe as wallpaper?)

But if Caius means that a good money should have a stable EXCHANGE
value relative to other commodities, that makes no sense to me. Its
exchange value is DETERMINED by the exhange rate with other commodities.

What it looks like to me, is that Caius has hypostasized market value.
He seems to think there is a REAL, ABSOLUTE price for everything. But
the choice of scales is perfectly arbitrary.

Of course, the money we have meets every other desideratum listed
beautifully. One might think our currency is destructible. In a way
it is. Australians have plastic money. Most of them don't like it.
Anyway, U.S. dollars are not destructible in the relevant sense. If you
can prove that some paper currency of yours was destroyed, you can
get replacement currency. And anyway it's awfully rare.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:30:50 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Pardons: who needs them?

Granted, we have had limited numbers of democratic executive office
holders in the past quarter century but can anyone list examples of
pardons handed out by democratic presidents? I can't think of any off
hand. As far as the Iran-Contra investigation taking a long time, that
is what tends to happen when the administration is using all avialable
resources to deny access to materials connected with the case on the
never fails grounds of national security. Now that Bill Clinton is the
commander-in-chief (don't you love the sound of that Brett and Robert?),
he need never disclose who/what he has slept with in the past on the
grounds that it would violate national security concerns. I personally
have a problem with the character issue; Bush ran his whole campaign
on "Who do you trust to tell you the truth?" and now it is obvious
that he has been less than candid with the american people as to his
knowledge of Iran-Contra. I would also like to see a special prosecuter
investigate the savings and loan fiasco and tell us how much money we
could have saved by addressing the issue prior to the 1988 election.

Has anyone heard anything about Ross Perot lately? I haven't seen the
news much lately but he seems to have had his fifteen minutes of fame
and is now back in oblivion. I wonder, are the democrats better crooks
than the republicans and manage not to get caught while in office,
thus the infamous pardon gap?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:50:54 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> --KAT,
>
> I agree with you. It is better to appoint people who are SYMPATHETIC
> towards gays than appointing gays. Some gays, especially the closeted
> ones, can be more anti-gays than some of the straight homophobes.
> That is one of the reasons why the magazine "Advocate" started the
> practice of "outing" closeted gays. I don't agree with that policy
> but I can see why they want to do that.
>
> Sam.

  definitely correct. roy cohn comes to mind, as well as terry dolan,
one of reagan's top fundraisers until he died of aids.

  and as for outing people, queer nation has announced that donna
shalala, clinton's pick to head hhs, is a lesbian. she has stated
that she told the fbi that she "does not practice an alternative
lifestyle", which sounds an awful lot like a waffle to me.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:02:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments

Sam, how is Clinton "slowly backtracking" from his promise to let
gays serve in the military?  Because he's planning on tackling the
problem slowly and methodically by insisting on rules of sexual
conduct for everyone in the military, gay or straight?

Do you want gays to openly serve in the Army today, NOW NOW NOW, or do
you want them still serving openly in the Army 100 years from now?

Think about tomorrow, for crying out loud.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:16:25 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Sun,
              3 Jan 1993 14:15:06 GMT from "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@EFF.ORG>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/03/93 09:56
To:           Joe Freeman <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

From Carl...
Lesbian women are less likely than hetrosexuals to have sexually
transmitted diseases such as AIDS. Thus, I doubt that diseases rates
are really your criteria.

From  e...
I must admit, when I ponder upon the sickness of homosexuality, my first
inclination is to envision the male persuasion.  Therefore, my comments
should usually be taken in context of homosexuality in general but
with males specifically in mind.  Lesbianism, I agree, is without some of
the more disgusting and risky behaviors common to their male brethren.  I
am content with knowing the action is an immoral behavior.  Other reasons
for objection are superfluous.

From Carl...
It seems that you believe housing and employment discrimination should
be used to save people....

From Me...
It seems, sir, that you are mistaken.

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:01:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

Agreed about the bad name Libertarians get, Brett, but maybe if Lyndon
LaRouchewasn't their best-known proponent, they wouldn't have that image.   :)

My question is, Why do we have to have libertarianism?  Why do we have to
have socialism, or other -isms that tend to that end of the spectrum?  What's
wrong with democracy?

If democracy "doesn't work," what makes you think libertarianism would work?

Of course, democracy includes libertarianism and socialism.   :)

So, in the end I think we'll be okay.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:19:26 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Logic Czar Intervenes

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

>My assumptions are:

>1) rightism<=>support-for-free-market  \
>nazis didn't support free market    /   therefore nazism is NOT rightism

>You say that the following term is "widely accepted"

>2) nazism=>rightism

>(One person argued that nazism<=>rightism but let's ignore it)

I agree, so far. (I don't agree with (1), but I agree that it
is one of Caius's assumptions!)

-------------------------------------

>R <=> F and N => ~F    therefore  N => ~R

>                                  N => R
--------------------------------------
>There must be an error in these statements.

Why, yes, there is an error in your assumption.

>I consider N=>R (if you are a nazi you are a rightist) to be false.

Yes, we know that.

Look, I think this is mostly cleared up now. You simply are using
the word "Rightist" in a non-standard way.

It's as though I decided to use the word "Polish" to mean
"ignorant Catholic despot."

This method is called "dissuasive definition."

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:36:48 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What constitutes 'proof' for you, telepathy? .

>From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>

>>Give us proofs, not words!
>
>My boy, words ARE proofs unless you need pictures or something.

Hear hear!

Couldn't have put this better myself.

>"words" from reputable sources. So, my "proof" about Nazis being
>rightists is at this point more reasonable than yours in that I
>offered proofs, not mumbo-jimbo, not rhetoric.

Tempting as the expression "mimbo-jimbo" is, I don't think it
would be QUITE fair to adopt it in our context.

Jamie
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]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:24:04 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      planning
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>>I do not accept the government manipulating the economy.
>
>What would you do if the economy collapsed?  To quote FDR, "Try anything.  If
>it doesn't work, try something else."

Economies usually colapse BECAUSE of government manipulation. Something else
we can try is no government manipulation.

>Besides, if the government doesn't at least macroplan the economy, big business
>usually does.  See Carnoy and Shearer, _Economic Democracy_.

Big business is macroplanning its *OWN* money (unless it is a lobby)

>Dan, ad nauseum

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:35:54 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
              23 Dec 1992 07:40:44 CST from <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:40:44 CST rufus t. firefly said:
>
>> Let's have a contest.
>>
>> Who can be MORE in favor of freedom of speech for those with whom
>> you disagree?
>>
>> I'll go first. (oops, too late for that.)
>>
>> I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
>> Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
>> Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.
>>
>> Wow. Controversial, huh?
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>
>  i'm in favor of freedom of speech for all of the above, plus nambla,
>holocaust revisionists, and straight white republican males. so there.
>
>rtf

I'm in favour of freedom of spelling for all of those, plus people who
spell color, favor, etc, with a 'u', ie, colour, favour, labour, etc.

top that


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:27:56 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: nambla
              2 Jan 1993 10:50:17 +0100 from <BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG>

From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG

> if the word "loving" means only sex to you, than you surely misunderstood
> what I meant. I thought these two words exist to describe two different
> things. I think it's just a matter of semantics. I believe that it's OK to
> be sexually attracted to minors as long as the feeling doesn't lead to
> a crime of rape.

I agree with you that "loving" and "having sex" are two
different things.

...however, I don't think it is "OK" to be sexually attractive
to minors.  Murdering is illegal.  Thinking about murdering other
people is not illegal but it certainly is not OK.  Being attracted
to minors and murdering (both harmful if carried on) might be
"normal" but they are sure not OK.

And when people get together to "talk" about thinking about
something harmful, they usually discourage that act not promote
it.  I THINK that is where NAMBLA is different than, say, AA.

> sam

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:04:44 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: in ri, drunk drivers get court (ha!)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

speednut: (who he ?)
>>Australia..........Drivers name is sent to the local newspaper and printed
>>                   under the heading "He is drunk and in Jail"
>
>They forget to mention that you lose your licence for a minimum of 3
>months and if your blood alcohol is high enough, off to gaol you go.
>If you are a first timer, you must complete an education course on
>drinking before being able to re-sit a driver's examination and get your
>licence back.

The most effective deterrent is fear of being caught. In the UK and
the US your chance of being stopped and breath tested is very small,
particularly if you keep within the limit, stop at red lights, etc. In
New South Wales they just set up breath testing points on the side of
the road and haul in every third car or whatever. As a result not many
people drink and drive in New South Wales.

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:50:48 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: what a clever cleaver
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>set politics no-moss
>mmorse

How clever.  *BUT* you overlooked a much faster method.  One that also
carries benefits for *everyone* on the list.

Just power off *your* terminal.

---Robert

"Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU