HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:43:28 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Quotable quotes
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> "Your abortion can be a rebellious and empowering act.  It is an act
>  through which you can assert yourself; one which can enable you to
>  feel more connected to women around the world.  Indeed, it is a
>  surgical operation with a mission."
>                  - Rebecca Walker, in Harper's Magazine Nov '92
>                    contributing editor
>                    Ms. Magazine
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mx Walker,
>
> You are a hateful, evil, immoral murderous b____!
>
>                            Sincerely,
>
>
> ---Robert

Flame on, Robert!   This quote has got to be one of the funniest I
have ever read-- right up there with the "don't criticize her,
because then you're being chauvinist" logic (or demonstrated lack
thereof).

    To extend her logic to a humorous extent, why don't we all
sympathize with the Kurds in Iraq and mutilate our own bodies to
resemble theirs.  This way, our bodies would serve as a symbol to the
world that we are determined to help them.  Our personal pain will be
self-destruction with a mission.

    Congratulations, Ms. Walker.  You take the award of "let's
confuse the American public so much they think I'm saying something
important" award.  Thanks, Robert, for posting this.  It just made my
day...

--Stan Jacobs
    "It's not always popular to be right, but why can't I have both?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:50:34 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

Jamie:

>Well, you are confused because it's confusing.

Whew!  That's a big relief :)

>I think he would say this:
>There may be such a thing as a direct infringement of equal protection
>BY PRIVATE GROUPS. The infringement would be, presumably, a targeting
>of a certain race for maltreatment, or nowadays also a certain sex.
>But, Scalia says, there was no such targeting by OpRes.

OK, I think.  Did he explain how he arrived at that conclusion (this has
probably been covered already, but I'm slow)?  Was it that women-seeking-
abortions aren't a class (didn't I read that somewhere?)?  Or that OpRes
wasn't "targeting"?  Or that no infringement occurred?

I've tried to figure out his reasoning by analogy, but it doesn't work.
Every analogy I can think of winds up with OpRes doing what the law says it
can't.

Sigh.
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:19:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...

Jonathan says:

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

If the US is ever held to account for its numerous war crimes, and the UN
orders a no-fly zone over a portion of US soil - do you think the US won't
track inbound UN flights over US soil?

The Iraqis have every right to track those flights - as they did to move their
missles around THEIR OWN SOIL.

>And if you
>are flying a plane and want to wait until you actually _see_ a missile,
>that's your death-wish.

I hope you don't advocate this action _everywhere_; the US regularly orders
fly-overs of other countries for intelligence purposes...if and when those
countries activate their radars (again, their right - since the planes would
be violating international law), would it be OK for the US planes (ie,
the violaters) to bomb the radar sites?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:10:44 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 13:17:15 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Brett':

Hey, wait a minute!

*I* don't approve of HC exercising power in the White House (I couldn't,
however, care less that her quarters have moved to the same wing as
the President's, though I understand the symbolic import involved).

And *I'm* not a man.

It's not because you're men; it's because you're *right* (in every sense
of the word.  :-) )

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:44:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...

Dan says:

>There is a difference between tracking these planes and locking on with radar.
>Radar lock-ons are used triangulate and coordinate missiles to their targets.
>Besides, these are no flight zonesd that the UN has imposed and allows for
>allied fly overs. The action of Iraqi radar poses a threat to these flights and
>any pilot who is sane would want to avoid being locked on to by hostile radar
>(its not just a fly over of any ole' country like you imply).

I used the example of the United States for specific reasons.

There is a lengthy list of UN resolutions that the US has not complied
with - because they went against the "US's interests".

Iraq has not accepted the "no fly zone" - and since foreign planes fly
in their sovreign air space, they at least have the right to track them
(you know, they may even fly OUT of the NFZ, for "intel" reasons).

Tracking high-speed planes with passive radar is like looking for them
with the unaided eye in the dark.  Iraq has the right to protect their
sovreign interests.  The no-fly zone doesn't give the US the right to
fly at any time, for any reason, and bomb at will.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:31:52 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Warning: Jay Steven Sultan of swing Alert!!

Well Jay, good to hear from you buddy. I figured you would have done
the honorable thing and driven the knife home upon learning of Clinton's
stomping of the Bushmeister.

"Numerous studies have shown that men fight and die for their comrades,
not for flag, country, etc." Would you care to list even ONE of these
alleged studies and where it can be located? There are many studies
that show that Elvis is still alive but they are not quality material.
I have seen several documentaries on Vietnam that would suggest that
the men there killed for a chance to go home to mom, sweetheart, the
comforts of civilization.

Jay is famous for making assertions that things are absolutely true,
without bothering to provide any facts to back his statements. Please
list one study and I will withdraw my comment and humbly apologize.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:46:00 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Prince

Hi, guys:

WARNING:  This may not be politics.  It *might* be religion.  I'm really
not sure.

Could someone please explain Prince's new top-ten song "7" to me?  I've
caught a bit about "We're going to watch them fall," but I'm sure there's
also something from Revelation, and I *thought* I heard something
about government.  Or maybe it's just another song about Prince being
the Messiah.  The brother is just too cool to be clear.

Thanks.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:01:37 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >
> >Ironically, the best position for Hillary--prohibited by this law--
> >would have been as Attorney General.  That is where she is most
> >qualified.  (Certainly not in health care, and as we've seen in
>
> I'm not completely familiar with govt process and appointments in the
> US, but shouldn't the question be not what position Ms Clinton is best
> qualified, but rather who is the most qualified individual for the position.
> While I've read that she is a very good lawyer, wouldn't it be in the best
> best interest of the public good that this job be given to one of the
> country's top lawyers?  In a country that is stuffed full of lawyers, the
> law of large numbers would dictate that she isn't one of them.
>

I had heard somewhere, perhaps incorrectly, that Hillary was listed
in the top 20 attorneys in the nation years ago.  (Perhaps higher,
perhaps longer ago, who knows?)  Unless I'm mistaken, she really
was/is qualified to be the Attorney General.  Does someone have some
additional information that might shed some more light on Hillary's
qualifications?


> I'd like to comment about the Clinton administration's claims about having
> the "most diverse cabinet in history".  Of the 18 cabinet appointments made
> by Clinton, 14 are lawyers.  God only knows how many of them are in
 sub-cabinet

As far as I know, the only Administration with more attorneys was the
Nixon administration.  Unfortunately, "those that know the law are
above it" (JSJ, 1989) is something which all attorneys inherently try
to prove when they are in a position to be able to almost get away
with it (i.e. A place called Hope... The White House).


> I never miss an opportunity to bash lawyers :-)
> --JD

That's fine.  I won't be an attorney for about five more years, at
which point, I will proceed to put you away for slander, libel, and
character assassination... not to mention any other neat violations I
learn in law school...<smile>...

--Stan
    "The world has 5 years of freedom left.  Then, I'm an attorney."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:28:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Cap Gains (the famous comic book hero)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

>         Perhaps.  But capital in the hands of business does tend to stimulate
> the economy.
>         And in order for capital gains revenues to rise, capital gains have to
> be realized: stocks and/or houses sold for example.  So all that income doesn'
> simply get stashed in a portfolio, to be dusted off at retirement.

But there are lots of activities that generate capital gains that don't
generate a penny of business investment: speculating in the art market,
for example.  That kind of activity is also stimulated by lower rates.

And, stimulus comes from getting NEW capital into the hands of business.
Much of the activity caused by lower rates will involve trades of
existing stock.

Also, KAT has an excellent point about the ethical message sent: a lower
rate on capital gains tells the nation that speculation is a better way
to make a living than work.

>         The two periods I have data for (the 60s and 80s) in which declining
> rates were followed by increased revenues would seem to indicate a livlier
> stock market, and a livlier capital pool for business.  As a result of
> sheltering, not a bad thing.  Remeber that in times of high taxes the money
> goes into tax-free bonds--mostly to the government.  Which is a more efficient
> way to get capital out to those who need it?

The data you've shown so far don't support that conclusion.

Also, the argument you're making here isn't really about capital gains,
it's about high rates in general.  You aren't showing us why rates for
capital gains should be lower than rates for ordinary income.  I am also
skeptical that tax sheltering provides a significant amount of
investment capital.

> >So Brett's proposal (continued lowering of the capital gains tax rate
> >until revenues cease to rise) is really just a series of tax cuts for
> >the upper brackets.
>
>         Whoa!  Where the heck did that come from?

Since the lower capital gains rate provides an incentive to shelter
earned income, the total tax bill is lower than it would have been with
equal rates (that's the purpose of a tax shelter, after all).

My main point is that lower capital gains rates encourage unproductive
speculation at the expense of productive investment.  It would make for
much better economic planning to keep the rates on all types of income
the same, so that investment decisions can be made without having to
second-guess the fluctuations of the tax code.  I also feel that these
taxes should be indexed to the same extent as taxes on other sources
of income are indexed.

Best,
Peter

> Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The longest line
             contained 0 characters
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:37:50 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Wed,
              27 Jan 1993 10:33:36 CST from "rufus t. firefly"
              <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/27/93 11:35

> it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
>is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.
>rtf

This is *exactly* right!  It's not toleration, they already have that,
it's official government recognition/sanction they're after.  We all
know there are gays in the military, always have been and always will
be.  By and large, toleration has been the name of the game.  As long
as the issue was kept quiet, the system simply looked the other way.

With the blessing of government, homosexuals will have finally succeeded
in achieving *minority* status.  This is a crying shame.  We will feel
the repercussions of this recognition in all areas of society.  If the
government recognizes homosexuals as a minority group for military
service, then how can all government services not be held to the same
standards?  If we lose the military to reprobate minds, I predict the
next battleground will be public education and the outcome will be
the same.

Now is the time to buy stock in "Soap-on-a-Rope".  After this, a dropped
bar of soap is history.

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:59:12 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military [Jay]

Hi.  NINAR Kerry wrote:

>WHY would those who oppose the values held by a group--militaristic,
>even "macho" values--want to JOIN that group in the first place?

Um, maybe they wouldn't.  Maybe individuals who want to join the military
don't oppose its values.

>IF women enter combat in numbers and successfully kill people and break
>things, what do they prove?  That they hold the values they claim to
>despise.

Or that they never made the claim in the first place?

>The same holds for ANY group that uses its public offices to denounce
>the values of the military, yet demands the right to enter that
>same military.

I think it's more instructive to think in terms of *individuals* wanting to
join.  No group (that I can think of) always espouses views that are
uniformly held by all those who share characteristics with others in a
group.  Hence, NOW doesn't speak for all women, etc.

As for risk and such, shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves
the risks they are willing to take?  Or, conversely (:) -- if we ever have
to institute a draft, and we insist that straight males take risks, why
shouldn't we make the same demand of others?

What do you think?
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:32:51 EST
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Organization: Cuz's House of Dis-Information
Subject:      Amendment 2 (Restraining Decision)
Comments: To: Politics List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

I sent this out a couple a days ago.... But since I got no response,
maybe it got stuck in transit... So I'm mailing it again. Any info on
any of the things I would like to obtain would be appreciated.

|       I need the opinion of the Colorado Judge in the Amendment 2
| Temp Restrainig Order Case. Anyone have it, or know of an FTP site
| that has it? Also, Does anyone actually have the text of the Amendment
| and of Oregon's Prop 9? (I'm planning on writing an essay onthese for
| a school periodical).

--
   Cousin It                                 cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
        "Time has changed the seasons, and I go on with
           no reason, I feel my life slipping away"
                     Riot "Bloodstreets"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:44:59 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Hi Folks:

High, NINAR!

> About this "Nintendo" thing.  I hardly think the press was locked out
> of what was going on.  But if they were, I think they made it perfectly
> clear why during the press briefings.  If the press is thought by the
> government to be best kept away from the action, it's because the
> press just happens to be full of people who are slow on the uptake and
> ask unbelievably stupid questions.  If you had a job to do, would you
> want these people in the way?

<IMAGINARY EXAMPLE DELETED>

I understand that many people there were sent from the Podunk Wierd-
Harold and went from a crime beat to a military beat, and not everyone
knows the ins and outs of technological warfare. (If even fewer people
knew those ins and outs, then maybe the world would be safer, but
anyway . . . )

However, if my memory of the press conference is correct, it went more
like this:

Briefing Officer: Our MIBs, supported by M-60 and M-1 MBTs, took
Position Alpha. Positions Baker and Charlie were bypassed, receiving
sustained explosive packages from airborne launch platforms. So far,
Allied forces received 3 KIA and 18 casualties. 2 others were marked
as victims of friendly fire.

Reporter: WHAT?

Confusion and Plausible Deniability are effective techniques taught
to the briefing officers of our armed services, and of course many
others

> And if you didn't figure it out during the Gulf War, you had to have
> gotten it when the press arrived before the military recently at the
> commencement (an appropriate word for something so well publicized)
> of Operation Restore Hope.

You *CANNOT* convince me that someone, either at Foggy Bottom or
across the river, didn't leak that information on purpose. Something
as big as that press clench doesn't happen if just one reporter is
told - Ever heard of a scoop? The AP and UPI reporters in the Kennedy
motorcade in Dallas had a fistfight over the carphone - THAT is how
much a reporter values a scoop, so something that big had to have a
media handler. Who would want an invasion handled? State or Defense.

> Annoy the media; read a book.

Sure. The media wrote and published that book.  B)

> --NINAR Kerry

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:14:10 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Rush Limbaugh:  the hardest working man in show business, and President
>   of the Shadow Government of the United States of America.

Slander against both James Brown and Jay Steven Sultan. I am
impressed.

> Rush Kemp in '96

I think Kemp has already graduated college. I have no doubt he
went Greek, however.

> --NINAR Kerry

Dave
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:STEIN@UCONNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:35:07 EST
From:         Alan Stein <STEIN@UCONNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Shortest Presidency

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

Does anyone recall anything like that ever happening?


  Alan H. Stein                stein@uconnvm.bitnet
  Department of Mathematics    stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
  Univ of Conn/Waterbury       Compu$erve  71545,1500
  SNET (203) 596-4080          GEnie       ah.stein
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:03:03 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re:Re:Monday musings

Tim doesn't have a problem with US not complying with items that fail
to become UN resolutions because we veto them. Not surprising that a
president, even a virtual one, would feel that way. I'm sure that GHWB
felt there was nothing wrong with not complying with savings and loan
regulations and his predecessor had no problem with not prosecuting the
persons involved in Iran Contra or the HUD scandal.

Does anyone know how the UN veto power came to exist? Would the US
continue to belong to the UN if the entire body voted to disband the
security council and eliminate the veto power? What criteria, aside
from "it's our ball and if we can't pitch were gonna go home" determines
wether a UN sanction can be eliminated by a veto, even thouth the
majority of members support the resolution?

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