HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:13:34 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      back to iraq

I heard a report on the news this morning that US planes have shot down
an Iraqi fighter in the designated no fly zone. Can someone enlighten
me on how the no-fly zone came about? Was it a UN resolution or a
condition imposed by the coalition at the end of the war? I think it
makes a difference when considering your legal position in such a
matter.

The Iraqi's have vowed to retaliate. Will we see US troops in action
in two spots soon? It seems that the only possible avenue for the Iraqi's
to take would be terrorist attack. I wonder if they have purchased any
submarines from the former soviet union? Subs would go a long way toward
reducing the air superiority edge but we could still launch long range
attacks.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:31:19 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> In article <9212231619.AA07936@wizard.netx.com>,
>     Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM> writes...
> >It could also be that there aren't any or maybe very few openly gay
> >people who are qualified for cabinet positions.
> >
> >Do you know of any?
>
> I would suggest Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), but I haven't thought out which
> department he should head.  His district is safe enough for a Democrat, but
 his
> minor scandal over consorting with a male prositute (before he came out) might
> damage his chances for confirmation.  Also, Clinton may want to keep his wit
 in
> Congress, where it isn't as potentially damaging.
>
>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum
>
I would think that Frank is much too liberal for a Clinton administration.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:36:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      caius-wing

Caius, don't you have any >work< to do today???


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:59:32 CST
From:         George <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More Cabinet Follies

>Me sticking up for Bill Clinton, what is this world coming to?

What is even stranger is that Clinton is actually standing up against
the special interest group that swore that the cabinet 'would look like
America', the feminists, who wanted the cabinet to be'51% women.'- (NBC News)

The New York Times said, 'Bill Clinton's angry swipe at women's groups, who
he said were "playing quota games and math games" with the selection of his
Cabinet.

What!  Did Billy say that?  My, my, can you imagine what would it have been
like if a Republican president said that??  All hell would break loose.

Come to think of it, they do know what it was like, for 12 years.

Welcome to the club, Bill.

George
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 15:07:42 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      green skin explanation
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

First Caius says:
> Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
>       what people think, do, choose etc.

>Then , when a flaw is pointed to him, he says:
>> Green skin - normal on Mars, abnormal on Earth;

>I thought you said "you cannot judge the skin," what happened?
>--KAT

Explanation:
(a source of words expects the target to have at least minimal intelligence)

You cannot judge on people characteristics people cannot change.

ethnic origin - cannot change
natural skin  - cannot change

painted skin  - can change

Get it now? Contact me if still not.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:48:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      More cabinet appointments

> From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
> satisfy certain political interests. Personal feelings, no matter
> how strong, are usually put on hold.
>

Again, you assume that personal interests and political interests are
totally incompatible in every individual.  You're going to have to
look beyond that assumption, or else you're going to be very
confused about what's going to probably happen over the next four
years.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:10:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments

Thanks Brett for the stats.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:15:38 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

>> So?  Is "willing to break the law" a crime?
>No, it's not.
>But doesn't it bother you that the president of the United States is
>willing to break the law?

Lots of things "bother me", but I don't expect anyone to go to jail
over them.  I don't expect govt to throw $60 million at them either.

Just as there are issues that aren't constitutional, there are issues
that are not criminal.

EVERY president or serious candidate appears to be willing to break
the law, so if you're annoyed by that, you're stuck.

>I think that he is guilty of incredibly bad judgement and history
>ought to remember him as such.

Then what was the special prosecutor doing?

Bad judgement isn't against the law.  Selective prosecution of people
associated with someone who exhibits bad judgement is an abuse of the
system.  Once we set that precedent, we're going to have even more
problems with witch hunts, and they don't always go after the "right"
targets.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:09:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

No, I don't think men should be hated just because many of them would
>like< to commit rape; but if they started a "Let's Meet and Talk About
Wanting to Rape Women" Association, I would feel kind of queasy.

Of course, you could argue that our heterosexual male-dominated society
is basically one big informal "Let's Meet and Talk About Wanting to
Rape Women" Association, but at least it's not formally incorporated.  ;)

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:28:46 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Convincing Kerry

>One thing that seems unclear to me is the distinction Joe wishes
>to draw between a belief and an intention.
>I always thought that an intention was a kind of belief. But if not,
>I still don't see why the distinction is an important one.

Its importance depends on what we're trying to do.

>We also agree that in cases of homicide, we might have two
>cases in which the outward behavior is identical, but one case
>is a more serious crime than the other, because of the criminal's
>state of mind.
>
>I claim that the Wisconsin law is essentially similar to
>the second category. I do not understand why you disagree.

Suppose our goal is to reduce the occurrence of harmful acts.  That
provides a basis for distinguishing first time "I tried to do that"
and "oops, I didn't mean to do it"; that basis is that it's probably
easier to adjust the behavior of the latter person than that of the
former.  (After someone has said "oops" a number of times, we
obviously need more effective measures such as those we use for "I
tried to do it".)  If it turns out that it's actually easier to change
the behavior of "I wanted to kill her" than "oops", then the "oops"
people get the serious hosing (to the extent that serious hosing
works).

This "reduce harm" goal does not, by itself, distinguish "I did it
because I like to see people suffer", "I did it because I don't like
that kind of person", and "I did it because they wouldn't hand me
money".  We might know something else about people who fall into
those categories along the lines of "It's easier to convince robbers
to leave people alone than it is to convince Nazis".  That info
together with our "reduce harm" goal would justify different
penalties, but if we found that Nazis were easier to convince than
robbers ....

We could have other goals.  We could punish people because they
disgust us, and a robber isn't as disgusting as a Nazi.  However, if
we do that, there's no particularly good reason for waiting for said
Nazi to do something "wrong" - we've got a basis for hosing them just
because they're a Nazi.

The Wisconsin law is not necessarily consistent with a "reduce harm"
goal.  (We need more evidence to make the call.)  It is consistent
with the "Nazis disgust us" goal.  What is our goal?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:16:21 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Parental neglect?

I'm sorry uncle ernie but parental neglect is telling the kid not to
bother you while you are watching the football game. Leaving a nine
year old kid home with a four year old kid crosses the border into
child abuse.

Maybe some of the list library people would like to provide some stats
on child abuse by heterosexual couples versus homosexual couples. I'm
willing to bet that you will find far more DOCUMENTED cases of abuse
in the former scenario than the latter. I spent four years working in
an institution for children with a variety of problems. I don't remember
seeing a single child who came from a family composed of two homosexual
parents. I realize that this doesn't prove that homosexual parents are
more caring but at the same time it certainly doesn't prove that the
heterosexual couples make better parents.

Can someone cite the portion of the constitution or the specific law
that prohibits adoption by homosexual couples? Don't we have laws
that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

It seems to me that the qualities that make a "good parent", the
guidence of young minds, the sense of security, the willingness to
make sacrifices, has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation,
AS LONG AS THAT ORIENTATION DOES NOT INCLUDE A SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO
CHILDREN, but this statement holds true for heterosexuals as well
as homosexuals.

Happy new year to all.

Linda, I miss you.

fred
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 14:47:42 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Reitman, Attorney to Be" at Dec 19, 92 3:33 pm

Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be pisze:
>>
>> In article <9212181700.AA12777@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,
>>   Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>> >First based on socialism (a belief that the poor should fight the rich - in
>> >1930 Germany those rich were Jews)
>>
>> I beg your pardon!  Tell me truly that European Jews in the WWII period were
>> uniformly rich or that the rich were uniformly Jewish.

The wealth was the main cause of discrimination, all the "racial"
announcements just propaganda.


>> Do the words shtetl and

I don't know.

>> pogrom mean anything?

Yes. Why?

>>                                                 Dan, ad nauseum
Caius
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 14:41:37 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      caius-wing explanation
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

I have engaded in several separate threads of discussion in POLITICS, and some
of the "experts" took advantage of cut&paste features of their editors and
mixed them up to show the false view of my (Caius) opinions.

I would like to clarify:

I find homosexuality:
1) abnormal
2) unnatural
3) harmful
4) awful
5) wrong
Most of the above are moral judgements.

However, I think that

All people should have the same rights. There are no difference between
any groups of citizens as far as access to freedoms, rights, law is concerned.
This is a political judgement.

From political point of view THERE IS NO SUCH CATEGORY as homosexuals.
There only citizens, individuals.

---------------
IS IT CLEAR ???
---------------

Mixing my previous moral and political judgements is just a MANIPULATION.
I have the right to be angry about that and demand apologies.

Caius.

PS. This is my last posting on homosexuals. I am not going to discuss it
anymore as I don't think it is very important theme.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:29:47 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech

Hi, y'all:
I wrote:
>>I hardly think turning off a radio is analogous to "going home."  Even if
>>it were, you need to check a few facts.  In "most places", there is *no*
>>place for a woman to receive an abortion -- at last count, 83% of U.S.
>>counties have no such clinics.

and -andy replied:
>The statistic doesn't support the conclusion.

It doesn't?  If a county is a place, and 83% is more than half, then I'd
think it did.  But you're correct that the actual availability will vary
markedly from one place to the next.

>One can go to another county to have an abortion (or heart surgery for
>that matter).

Of course.  But sometimes driving to another county will be much more
difficult than turning off the radio (as was the original analogy).  Not
everyone lives in a small county; not everyone lives near a county line;
not everyone lives near a clinic.

>Most days, I travel through at least two counties.  From the roof of
>my apartment building, I can see four counties and on some days, I
>travel through more without going a significant distance.

How does this bear on the original analogy or the figures I posted?

>Don't bogus pro-choice arguments bother other pro-choice people?

I suppose.  I, of course, was not making an argument pro- or anti-choice; I
was simply correcting (or offering an alternative to, if you prefer) Pizz's
comment.

Kerry
From: TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET (Travis Kidd)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Some replies...
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:26:00 EDT CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET said:
> So, I take it Dr Pizz disagrees with the entire Civil Rights Movement as it
> applies to private businesses?
>
> If I don't want to hire blacks, I don't have to.
>
> If I don't want to serve blacks, I don't want to.
>
> If I don't want to treat black employees equally as white employees, I don't
> have to.
>

Hey--if the government is willing to pay me $10,000,000 to buy out my
business, I don't care who they hire.  As long as it is MY business,
shouldn't I be able to hire whom I want to hire?  And since when does
Congress have the right to tell me differently?
-Travis
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, 23 Dec 1992 12:22:56 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

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

        Lyndon LaRouche is not now, nor has ever been, a Libertarian.  (Nor is
David Duke.)  However, they are (repectively) a Democrat and Republican. :)

>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?

        Libertarianism isn't 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

        It's not that we're not ok, it's that things could be better.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:34:57 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Popishness (was Re: Words)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Jamie's quotations:
>I think I will now post some fun quotations.
>
>Latimer, 1549, "He wyl kepe his possession quyetly as he dyed in
>the popyshe dayes."
>
>Blackstone, 1769, "A short summary of the laws against the
>papists, under their three several classes, of persons professing
>the popish religion, popish recusants, convict, and popish
>priests." (I don't understand it, and I don't know why
>"convict" isn't plural, but that's the quotation.)

Interesting you should bring this up. The Vavasour family were "popish
recusants", and had to pay all manner of fines because they wouldn't
tow the line.

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:36:21 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Original Intent
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> This is simply an error. (It also includes a not-so-subtle
> ad hominem which I will ignore except for this parenthetical
> reminder. Andy actually set me up for a special kind of
> ad hominem reply, the "tu quoque" reply, but I shall
> resist the temptation.)
>
> Jamie
>
Jamie,

Could you please explain what you mean up there.

Thanks,

Jonathan
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Presidential Pardon
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:13 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GSYS8CZOVK001SXM@drew.drew.edu>,      
   WKIMLER@DREW.DREW.EDU writes...
>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?

This is an untested constitutional question, which will be based on several
factors:

1.	Conviction of a criminal offense does not automatically remove the
President of office (which would terminate power to pardon), but impeachment 
proceedings would probably begin immediately if Congress convened.

2.	The President may only pardon for federal offenses.  Because most of
the events in question presumably occurred in the District of Columbia and
federal enclaves, and potential charges presumably will refer to federal
statutes and interference with a federal investigation, there probably will be
a federal offense in this case.

3.	The reach of the power of the President to pardon is, as has been
demonstrated, extends to former presidents, former and probably sitting
officials, etc., and may cover past offenses not yet charged.  The Supreme
Court would probably have to decide whether the Constitution grants the power
of auto-pardon.  Given the division of the current Court, it could go either
way, and may depend on the Court's reading of United States v. Nixon (the
Watergate tapes). 

Note that Bush's staff reportedly already was considering such a pardon for any
offenses he may have committed.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:09:51 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again

>Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't
>advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
>please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
>them.  (I'd like to have a Ferrari.  Is the local Ferrari dealership
>"restricting" my ability to have one by refusing to give one to me for
>the price I can afford?)

I can't resist...

Suppose that you have the money to buy a Ferrari for the customary
cost of the car and the dealer says to you, "Mr. Freeman, you are
just too ugly to buy this car, if I sell this car to you and people
see you driving around town in it, everyone will think that Ferraris
are cars for ugly people and nobody will want to buy one..."

Just to add some fuel to the fire, an attracive person comes into the
dealership and the dealer, on the spot offers them a price reduction;
should the dealer be able to deny you the right to purchase a
Ferrari at the customary price? Should someone who sells/rents
housing be allowed to deny you the right/charge you a significantly
higher price based upon your appearance?

>-andy

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:50:20 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!

I do think that Walsh has taken his own sweet time about the investigation
(how long has it been:  6 years?).  All-in-all, I have not been pleased
with his performance.

About the pardons:  I'm glad that Robert MacFarlane got one.  He's already
suffered enough for his crimes (a suicide attempt should not be taken
lightly).  As for the rest, I'm not sure.

In conclusion:  I wish there had been another Special Prosecutor.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:09:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      planning

Caius, in using references to American government in your posts about how
government intervention causes things to collapse, you seem to be forgetting
that the United States of America is an ARTICIFIAL COUNTRY.  It is an
EXPERIMENT.  It is a place where the old rules of power and government have
been replaced by new "ground rules."

For anyone to claim that the United States ever has been or ever could be
run only by the government or only by the people's whims is ridiculous.
The government here >is< the people and the people here >are< the
government.  That's what the original ground rules were for this new
experiment (well, it was new back then).

Our country has always run into trouble when people try to assert that
the government and the people are separate and competing entities.

You can argue your points all you like, Caius, but leave the United States
of America out of it.  We may still have an imperfect realization of the
experiment we embarked on over 200 years ago, but we are still an
artificial country, and the unique relationship of our people to their
government (what relationship?  Theoretically, we're the same thing) still
exists.

This probably sounds like "mumbo jingo," but it's the truth.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU