HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: US Armed Forces
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:06:16 GMT
	<1992Apr13.231314.19580@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
	<LEE.92Apr15130206@meercat.wang.com>
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <LEE.92Apr15130206@meercat.wang.com>, Lee Story (ls) writes:

ls> One minor problem: how does stationing German soldiers in
ls> Kansas help protect Germany (that is, why would the German government
ls> be willing to pay to do this)?  

Also, wouldn't this violate the German constitution?

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: YOUNG@ricevm1.rice.edu (Garry Young)
Subject: Re: It's time for the Turkey Ballot, folks!
Organization: Rice University, Houston, TX
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:39:52 GMT

In article <15APR199214094696@jane.uh.edu>
mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble) writes:

[discussion of turkey ballot deleted]

But what makes you think that the next group of candidates, some
of whom probably got rejected during the initial primaries anyway,
would be better than the first two turkeys?

-garry
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: How a Bill Becomes Law (a science fiction story)
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:14:17 GMT
	<1992Apr14.164318.1083@panix.com> <LEE.92Apr15132848@meercat.wang.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.


My apologies for the lack of proper proofreading in my last response on this
thread, and for the substitution of "Junius" for "Publius" which I didn't
notice until after the post was out.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1969 talk.politics.misc:16993
From: YOUNG@ricevm1.rice.edu (Garry Young)
Subject: Re: DC Statehood
Organization: Rice University, Houston, TX
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:33:10 GMT

In article <7APR199212472131@zeus.tamu.edu>
dms0207@zeus.tamu.edu (David Smith) writes:

>I have a couple of questions regarding DC statehood.  I noticed recently that
>J. Jackson is pushing for DC statehood.
>
>	1.	What is the population of Washington DC?

The latest figure I have is for 1988:  620,000.  This is larger than
Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont and slightly smaller than Delaware and
North Dakota.  I would guess that D.C. lost some in the 1990 census.

>	2.	Why should DC be a state, when people who have moved their
>		knew in advance that there was no voting representation in
>		Congress?

You'll know what I'm referring to when I say this is reminiscent of
a "Highway 6 runs both ways" mentality.  Some people were born there,
some moved there for jobs, whatever.  The fact that the situation
regarding representation exists doesn't make it right.


>Also, if the people of DC are so insistent on their voting rights, why not
>have the different sections of the district divided up among the bordering
>states, with the Federal portion of the district still unrepresented in the
>Congress?

This strikes me as a reasonable idea but a lot of what is really going on
here is partisanship.  D.C as a state will be a reliable elector of
two Democratic senators.  This clearly can have a major impact on who
controls the Senate in future years.  One idea that I've heard passed
around is that Puerto Rico can be admitted as the "balancing" state.
Some Republicans like Bush have supported this in the past.  I'm
not convinced that Puerto Rico is all that much of a Republican
stronghold and besides, the people of Puerto Rico have traditionally
favored their commonwealth status over statehood.  One reason is exemption
from taxation, a status not enjoyed by residents of D.C.

From a normative viewpoint I think D.C. should get full representation.
They suffer from that classic American complaint: "Taxation without
representation."  Strictly speaking they have a level of representation
in the House - a non-floor voting member - but as noted, not in the Senate.
Your idea strikes me as a logical solution but probably not one that is
going to get a lot of political support by the people, Jackson for example
who wants to be a Senator, who are pushing for represenation.

garry
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Big Bri)
Subject: what is a congressmen's responsibility?
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: US
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:32:04 GMT

What is the foremost responibility of a congressman or senator?

Is it to represent his constituents or to act in the best interests
of the country? Which does he choose if they conflict, which they
often do (pork barrelling comes to mind as an example).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL 	  is a bleeding heart liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU.
CLARKSON '95
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

"Yassir Arafat had a terrible accident. He tried to fax a mail bomb...."
	---Johnny Carson
From: cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: US Armed Forces
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:20:57 GMT

Richard Caley writes
> Lee Story (ls) writes:
> 
> ls> One minor problem: how does stationing German soldiers in
> ls> Kansas help protect Germany (that is, why would the German
> ls> government be willing to pay to do this)?  
> 
> Also, wouldn't this violate the German constitution?

No. Contrary to popular belief Germany is perfectly well allowed to  
station troops in the countries of NATO allies and has done so in the  
past.

	Carl Edman
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1992 talk.politics.misc:17713
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: RICO laws
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:43:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory



I'm extremely interested in knowing everything about the RICO laws:
the procedures for seizure, the bidn rates for contesting them, the
standard of proof for retrieving them, statistics on its
success/use/utility, case studies and anything else (including its
constituionality, implementation in practice, etc).

I'd appreciate email, but I'll read tpt as well.

Thanks in advance!
 
--
Peace.
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
 and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                           ------
Don't just adopt opinions |  \/  | I am Charles Isbell, Homeboy from hell,
      develop them.       |  /\  | living axiom and anonymous absolute ruler
                           ------  of the cosmos.  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: How a Bill Becomes Law (a science fiction story)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:43:18 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Of course, this assumes there will be any kind of comprehensible
government or system of law 30 years from now.  In general,
I don't think the population is likely to maintain enough
interest to hang on some net studying the great issues of the
day for hours.  Already, most of the adults in America don't
vote, and when they do vote they seem to vote for personality
rather than issues.  What's going to reverse this
tendency?
-- 
* Gordon Fitch    |    gcf@panix.com
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: US Armed Forces
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:49:51 GMT

In article <RJC.92Apr16224450@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>, rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
|> I thought the restriction was Europe rather than NATO. Oh well,
|> wouldn't matter anyway, they could just declare America part of
|> Europe:-). 

   Umm, didn't we have words about that a few years ago :-)
-- 


		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: It's time for the Turkey Ballot, folks!
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:47:32 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research


I've been telling people we aught to have this for parliamentary
elections. I think the best way to do it is that if NOTA wins then (a)
there is no MP for the seat until a byelection is held and (b) none of
those who stood may stand in that constituency for the period of the
current parliament. That keeps them out for 5 years or so, by then
they may have evolved into something less turkey-like.

It would also have the advantage that I could actually go out and
vote...

I'm not sure that it works so well for a presidential election though
-- you'd have to be prepared for a situation where there is no
president. 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1981 alt.war:653
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.war
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:14:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr8.191457.16827
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr5.063517.18334@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
> 
> Is it because we've never had a lasting peace?  That is,
> 
>   a) It (achieving a lasting peace) has never been done before.
>   b) THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DONE.
> 
> I think this is the general reasoning, which serves as a
> psychological defense mechanism.  It allows people to maintain
> their sense of pride in spite of the fact that they have given
> up trying to solve the problem---even though it is ALWAYS INVALID. 
> That is, the fact that something has never been done before
> NEVER proves that it cannot be done. 
> 
> Of course, I don't fault anyone for giving up on the problem of
> peace.  If you don't have the tools or the inclination to do a
> job, then you shouldn't make the attempt.  A little more honesty,
> though, would be in order.  When you don't know, admit it.  Don't
> say it can't be done, without proof.
> -- 

	I generally don't say that war can't be stopped; I simply say that 
we appear not to be able to stop it now. Therefore, we should be prepared 
for that possibility. All the PC protest in the world, as far as I can 
tell, won't do a bit of good.
	There is the possibility that [some] sociobiologists are right and 
humankind is inherently aggressive. I doubt that it is anything more than 
an overcomeable tendency, but it is something to be thought about.
	Of course, it can be argued that war does good in the long run. It 
spurs on some scientific and technological advancement, for instance. It 
also reduces the population. It can remove societies which are falling 
apart and replace them with more vigourous ones.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2029 sci.econ:3821
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:49:24 EDT
From: <TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.war
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
 <1992Apr8.191457.16827@yang.earlham.edu>

In article <1992Apr8.191457.16827@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu
(Allen Smith) says:

>In article <1992Apr5.063517.18334@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>>
>> Is it because we've never had a lasting peace?  That is,
>>
>>   a) It (achieving a lasting peace) has never been done before.
>>   b) THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DONE.
>>
>> I think this is the general reasoning, which serves as a
>> psychological defense mechanism.  It allows people to maintain
>> their sense of pride in spite of the fact that they have given
>> up trying to solve the problem---even though it is ALWAYS INVALID.
>> That is, the fact that something has never been done before
>> NEVER proves that it cannot be done.

            It seems you are arguing a very real issue on abstract, philosophi-
  cal grounds.  Would you bet your life (or your country's security and the
  lives of its citizens) on the HOPE (which is what an unsubstantiated belief
  is) that there will be no war in the future?  In the lack of absolute fore-
  knowledge, we only have the past to go on, plus reasonable extrapolations
  from the past which take into account changing conditions.

      Well, I've always tried to avoid speeding cars when crossing the street:
  I've never been hit by one, so I'm not sure if I'm correct in trying to dodge
  them.  I know that people have been hit by them in the past, but that doesn't
  mean that JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY, IT ALWAYS WILL BE
  THAT WAY--would you thus chance walking in front of a speeding car?
       In the long run, human traits (not just aggressiveness, but greed,
  jealousy, hatred, fear, anger, irrationality) do not really change.  People
  in the 18th and 19th centuries used to believe that technological advance
  would end war through the betterment of all humankind, but the 20th Century
  is the bloodiest in all of human history.  Technology, religion, political
  structures have all tried to end war in the past, but have abysmally failed.
  In order to make anyone believe that the future will be different, you must
  substantiate your claim.  What is YOUR solution?

                                                        --Tom--
                                          "We know who ate all the schnitzel at
                                           this table!"--G.T.
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Date: 13 Apr 92 05:34:04 GMT
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


[I dropped alt.war from the newsgroups line]

In a previous article, TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu () says:

>   Are you suggesting that nations with their financial houses in order don't
>go to war?  
>   Are you suggesting that nations go to war because people don't trust their
>governments?  Or that governments "don't trust each other?"
>...... I fail to see the meaning in this line of reasoning.

I'm suggesting that if governments can't do what they set out to do
without continually getting into wars, then they should have fewer
responsibilities.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Reply-To: dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:43:44 GMT

In article <laupalt.702991191@polaris> laupalt@polaris.utu.fi (Lauri Veli Tuomas Paltemaa) writes:
>
> 	Your theory gives me an impression, that some biological
>	laws of nature lead us, and there is nothing we can do
>	about it.
[...]
>	continued by other methods ( Clausewitz ). It is all
>	about our known motives and ways to run them. A war can
>	allways be evated by negotiations. 

    Not so. Think of the 1939 war between your country and the USSR.
Stalin demanded parts of Finnish territory. Finland either had to yield
the territory, or prepare to fight for it.
    War can perhaps be avoided by honorable countries in a resolvable
conflict. But this would be the exception, not the rule.

>	[...] No war is inevitable unless
>        we self want it.
>
     But people so often want war. Wars tend to be very popular, even
in peaceful, liberal countries. My point was really this. That the
desire for war is to be found in all of us.

DanZ

This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions, or
narratives contained herein are not necessarily true, and do not
necessarily represent the views of any particular person.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: YOUNG@ricevm1.rice.edu (Garry Young)
Subject: Re: Info on preferential voting
Organization: Rice University, Houston, TX
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:44:35 GMT

In article <57366@cup.portal.com>
pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:

>
>I'm looking for information on preferential voting, the so-called Australian
>ballot. In particular, I'm interested in the effect of this method on small
>political parties and in experience in countries that are using it.
>
>My local library is a bit limited in research materials, but pointers to
>refernces that can be gotten through inter-library loan would be very helpful.
>
>  Thanks,
>    ++PLS
>

There is a really large literature on the effects of electoral arrangements
generally which include specific discussions on preference voting.  I
suggest you pick up a couple of them and then narrow your search using
the bibliographies.  A good beginning is "Seats and Votes" by R. Taagepera
and M Shugart.  It's published by Yale University Press, 1989.

Another place to look is Grofman and Lijphart, "Electoral Laws and Their
Political Consequences," by Agathon Press 1986.  Also try R. Katz
"A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems," published by Johns Hopkins,
1980.  If memory serves correctly Katz is the most concerned with
preference voting and he has a chapter in the Grofman and Lijphart
volume already cited.  Those three may give you what you need or at
least get you headed in the right direction.

garry
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: US Armed Forces
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:02:06 GMT
	<1992Apr13.231314.19580@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

In article <1992Apr13.231314.19580@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis) writes:

	   In the spirit of internationalism, I think we should keep some troops
   in Germany. In exchange, I think we should offer the Germans base rights
   in the US. Ideally, this would be extended to cover many other countries
   in the future.

	   What better way to relieve tension, and foster a sence of respect
   for other cultures? If young soldiers were introducedto several foriegn
   countries, when they become leaders, they won't be able to help but think
   of foriegners as people.

A superb idea.  Remarkably, one which I have never before seen in
print.  One minor problem: how does stationing German soldiers in
Kansas help protect Germany (that is, why would the German government
be willing to pay to do this)?  And perhaps an unsurmountable problem:
We in the USA haven't had foreign troops on our soil for almost two
hundred years (I guess---War of 1812 the last?) except for very brief
training, and it's part of the nationalistic cultural pride of this
region that we should never allow it.  Of course our people can't
understand why foreigners might feel the same way.

This brings up another question: Is there much of a popular movement
in Germany to throw the US troops out forthwith?  I was in the
Dominican Republic shortly after the US Marines went in the last time
(1965-66) and surprisingly few people seemed to resent US presence,
though that may have been because they preferred the US government to
most of their own recent ones (esp. Trujillo), and feared a slide back
into dictatorship.  That can't be the case in Germany, though.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2000 talk.politics.misc:17851
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.politi,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown for President '92
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:32:34 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY

In article <sdspTNW00Uh7A7IGBR@andrew.cmu.edu> sm6f+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Steven M. Maliszewski) writes [quoting Jerry Brown's campaign
materials]:

>Concretely, this means a commitment to a Family Bill of Rights where:
>
>1.  Every person has the right to health care.
>2.  Every person has the right to a living wage.
>3.  Every person has the right todecent shelter and to be free from hunger.
>4.  Every person has the right to an education.
>5.  Every person has the right to be secure in their old age.

Out of curiosity, what does this list have to do with families?
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: US Armed Forces
Reply-To: dmz1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Daniel M Zabetakis)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:13:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.162035.4831@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dpm20384@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Douglas P. Martin) writes:
>Recently, I have heard some good arguments for keeping US armed forces
>within the United States.  Most of these arguments also entailed using
>US troops and equipment for defensive purposes only.  I think there
>are good reasons for pulling our troops out of Germany.  Now that the
>German states have been reunited and the Soviet Union has fallen apart,
>the mission of US troops in Germany is becoming outdated.  Does anyone
>have any thoughts on the subject either way?  

    In the spirit of internationalism, I think we should keep some troops
in Germany. In exchange, I think we should offer the Germans base rights
in the US. Ideally, this would be extended to cover many other countries
in the future.

    What better way to relieve tension, and foster a sence of respect
for other cultures? If young soldiers were introducedto several foriegn
countries, when they become leaders, they won't be able to help but think
of foriegners as people.

    I wouldn't say that this has even a chance of ending war, but it may
prevent some, and reduce the severity of others. And it could lead to more
and better cooperation between friendly natins when they must go to war
together.

DanZ


This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions, or
narratives contained herein are not necessarily true, and do not
necessarily represent the views of any particular person.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1998 alt.war:677
From: wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.war
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:59:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: University of Missouri -- Rolla

I had to write an essay about World War I for a test in college, so, hoping
for an extra advantage, I went and read the New York Times for the month
before the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand (a common date for the
"start" of World War I).  I was surprised to read all the political statements
by all sides about how terrible the war was going to be.  They had a good
idea of how many casualties there were going to be, that the cost would be
staggering; they also said things like it would set the world back 50 years
in terms of progress.  It was disheartening to me just how knowledgeable
they were before the fact.  I realize this post doesn't answer the question
in the subject heading, but I hoping someone reading this can use what
I've said in an answer of their own.  

Larry   

wdechent@clciris.chem.umr.edu