HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:15:33 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >...
> >>  Oh, and why hasn't the press attacked Inouye like they have Packwood?
> >
> >I don't know. Does Brett have a hypothesis?
> >Jamie
>
>         At the risk of being branded a
> sourgrapesultrarightwingreactionaryscapegoatmudslingingneofascist
> :)
> I'd say it was because Inouye is a Dem while Packwood is a Rep.  Just like it
> was only the Rep Senators that caught heat over the Clarence Thomas hearings
> while people like Ted and Howard were left alone.
>
>         Let's face it.  It's hunting season for Republicans.
OK.
you are a "sourgrapesultrarightwingreactionaryscapegoatmudslingingneofascist" :)
>
> Brett'
>

How about it's because Packwood "admitted" his wrongdoings and Inouye has
denied his.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:08:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> > So you need to come up with a better justification for your attitude
> > than this.  So far all you've offered is personal distaste as a
> > justification for restricting the ability of gays to live or work
> > where they please.  That's not enough.  ............................
>
> OK, what if someone is not advocating that gays should not
> gain employment, per se, but rather, bigots should be able
> to hire/fire, rent/evict whomever they want.  Is that
> "freedom" precious enough to preserve, though it might result
> in distasteful actions.  For, such a freedom also allows me to
> discriminate FOR a gay in my hiring actions.
>
> I am not saying I agree with the above but want to hear good
> arguments for and against it.
>
> Is hiring/firing or renting/evicting whomever you want worth preserving?
> Does preservation of such rights overweight the harm that it
> causes?  Can we look at that those practices as a kind of freedom
> of expression worth preserving?

Short answer: no.    :-)

Slightly less short answer: both parties in the transaction have rights.
In this case, the employee or renter or applicant has the right not to
be harmed by the discrimination of another, when that discrimination may
result in the person being deprived of something that he or she needs to
live in our world.  An analogy is free speech and libel.  We are free to
report truth and express opinions without worrying that we may be called
to task legally, even if we cause discomfort to another.  But we have no
right to lie about others, and others have the right to have their
reputations remain safe from damage by falsehoods.  Such an action is
not expression, but an attack, intended to cause harm.  Much the same
goes for discrimination by race or sex or nationality or sexual
preference or any other characteristic which is irrelevant to the
question of whether someone will be a decent employee or tenant or
whatever.  That is not expression, either, it is the intent to cause
harm (whether conscious or admitted is irrelevant).  It can only be
considered permissable expression if we assume that the other has _no_
rights at all in the matter (in other words, is not a human being).

Best,
Peter

> > Peter
>
> --KAT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Uncl ad infinitum
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:15:08 GMT


I live and work in an ivory tower.  It is very nice, but we have
a lot of trouble these days with the animal rights activists moaning
about the poor elephants.

To paraphrase the dear departed Marie, if the 'commoner' members of
this list get tired of the 'ivory tower' members -- let them read
each other's drivel.

--Jimbo



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:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:20:36 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      gold advantage
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Jamie writes:
>>I don't know of a single problem of the actual economy that would
>>be ameliorated by a gold standard.

Advantages of 100 percent specie standard (in short):

- Money free from govt manipulation. Government limited to obtaining funds
through borrowing or taxation, not money-creation.

- Provides legal rights of depositors, where ownership of funds remains in
hands of depositors.

- Elimination of government-induced inlation as well as business cycle,
internation monetary crises, balance of payments deficits.


If you are still not convinced there are excellent books on the subject,
I have recently read:

Mark Skousen, "Economics of a Pure Gold Standard", Praxeology Press, Ludwig
von Mises Institute, Auburn University; ISBN 0-945466-00-5

Kevin Dowd, "The State and the Monetary System"; St. Martin Press, NY;
ISBN 0-312-03509-8



Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:00:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Some replies...

Dr Pizz:
        "Government should only interfere in private business when they do
         something that is illegal."

The Law:
        "Discrimination based upon sex, race, creed, country of origin, (etc
         etc etc) is prohibited."

Dr Pizz:
        "Private business should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of
         sex, race, creed, (etc etc etc)."

Why doesn't Pizz just drop all the half-hearted BS arguments and just SAY
"I want private business to be able to discriminate based upon (the above)
 when hiring." ???

I don't think _anyone_ has bought your arguments, Doc...just admit it and we
can move on.....


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
            <18DEC199220573742@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:14:42 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: NORNAL

Considering the season and, uh, with all due respect to interested parties,
shouldn't we record the first case of artificial insemination as 4 B.C.?
Devoutly,
Michael
From: EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET (Ellen.Edgerton)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: clinton and major
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:33:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

That's nothing; if I'm not mistaken, the British government went through
Clinton's files over there, too.

I believe there are going to be a lot of smiles, handshakes and red faces
when Clinton returns to England.       :)

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:29:17 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: more responses to andy f.'s comments

>But it doesn't stop there--if the employees are being asked to share in
>the risk they may very well want to share in the decision-making power,
>as well.  Currently they possess almost no power, yet they bear a
>substantial amount of the risk.

So what?  They're being PAID for accepting that risk.

>To anticipate the inevitable comment,
>they actually risk more than the "owners" of the business.  Few
>stockholders throw everything they own into a single enterprise

Not so fast.  Sole proprietorships employ a huge fraction of the
workforce.  Those owners lose everything.  When a worker loses a job,
he's right where he was before.  When an owner loses a biz, she's
worse off than he was before; the assets are gone.

>So you might want to think twice about this proposal.  If you follow
>it to the logical conclusion, you may well see an unexpected outbreak
>of democracy.

Why would anyone invest in a biz in that situation?  They might LOAN
money to a "probably can't fail biz", or one with sufficient assets
that can't be easily destroyed (so foreclosure works), but they're not
going to go for anything risky.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:07:52 GMT

Let me condense Pizz's argument.

>After all, in
>some sense we are all on the earth for procreation, and everything we
>do in life is in someway related to making the world more livable now
>and in the future for our kids.  Homosexuals cannot have kids.  It
>seems rather unnatural, therefore to have such sex drives, since the
>evolutionary purpose of sex drives is to further the procreation of the
>species.  Clearly such sex drives do not have this effect, and are thus
>biologically counterproductive, and in my opinion somewhat abnormal.

Does anyone recognize the similarity between this position and that
of the ever so eloquent Mikhail Zeleny?  (On another list, sorry if
you don't know who I mean.)

I see at least 2 major problems with this.  First, it is not at all
clear that we are 'all on the earth for procreation'.  I'm certainly
not intending to procreate anytime soon.  And if I do, it certainly
won't be for any evolutionary reasons.

Second, it is unclear whether or not, without our serious overcrowding
problem worldwide, a significant population of nonbreeders wouldn't
actually ENHANCE the survivability of the species.  Certainly those
members of ant colonies (to make an analogy) who are not directly
involved with reproduction are not sick or wrong, eh?

So my questions to you: (1) Why should my own 'final end' be such
that procreation matters?  That is to say, when I am choosing what
I ought to do, why should procreation figure in, unless as a means
to some further end, say - my own happiness, or my own further survival?
(2) Suppose you recognize that homosexuality is not endangering the
species, but instead enhancing the ability of the species to continue?
Would you change your mind, then?

--Jimbo




Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:50:15 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Shooting at their backs

I recall often worrying that I was taking too many shots at Jay
Sultan's back. But his frequent back-turning tactics made it
inevitable. T is giving me deja vu.
But I will send this one last post directed at him. I mean, at THEM.
(I think T told us that we should use the word "them" to refer to him.
I mean, to them. Or maybe I misinterpreted their dictionary quotation?)


From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>I thank Jamie for posting excerpts of the article I had posted
>about FAS.

You're welcome.

>They clearly demonstrate an example of "claims" about FAS...
>claims that have been acknowledged by Jamie to be reasonable
>and not exaggerated (Whew...I'm glad they received the
>imprimatur... I was worried there for a while).

Right. Uh, did T think that maybe either Linda or I was saying
that EVERY CLAIM EVER MADE ABOUT ALCOHOL IN HISTORY was
exaggerated? Obviously, there are SOME claims about FAS
that are not exaggerated.

>I posted that article to show that current "claims" (claims that
>Linda had said, and to which Jamie agreed, were being "exaggerated")
>were not, in fact, being exaggerated.

If that's why you posted the article, then you failed to do what
you intended to do. The article actually shows that some claims
made by medical professionals ARE exaggerated. I commented on
excerpts in my earlier post to show which ones are exaggerated.

>If what she and Jamie meant were that claims by the _mainstream medical
>community_ about FAS were being exaggerated, I disagreed - and posted
>something from that community (something that Jamie has already given
>the "OK" to).

Hm. It looks like T really DID think that Linda's point was that
EVERY CLAIM EVER MADE BY ANYONE IN THE MAINSTREAM OF THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION was exaggerated. Otherwise, how could he (I mean,
they) think that giving one example of an unexaggerated claim would
show she was wrong?

Rather, Linda's point and mine was that SOME claims made by
medical professionals regarding FAS are exaggerated. Tim re-posted
one such claim for us. The article T posted actually shows that
some professionals are telling women to avoid even one ounce of
alcohol per week when pregnant. And so far, there seems to be
no evidence at all that one drink per week is harmful.

>I also stand by my post that physicians who give women a certain
>amount of alcohol as a "limit" for their intake during pregnancy
>are being irresponsible in the light of uncertain information.

I don't buy this at all.
There is also "uncertain information" about the effects of
asprin on fetal development. That is to say, no one can prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no harmful effect of
taking one asprin in month five. Indeed, there is "uncertain
information" about thousands of substances that pregnant women
ingest. It would be absurd for a doctor to tell her patients
never to ingest any of those substances because they MIGHT
just possibly be harmful.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:50:33 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Yesterday's appointments, and tomorrow's

Who do you think will be Surgeon General?

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:17:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among the poor es

>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,....

>I've got an infinite series like that.  And you know what else?
>I've got EVEN MORE than THAT!

so, jimbo.....
YOU'RE the one who keeps hogging all the numbers. i mean, come on, there's
enough to divide up w/the rest of us. i need some additional numbers, esp. this
time of year with Xmas plus regular bills subtracting from my account.

>--Jimbo, who knows some REALLY big numbers.

you digit dropper.

-linda (who's income level hasn't shown up on any of the cool poverty charts)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:19:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Normal?

>
>         Now your understanding of a disorder is based upon whether or not
> a society with such "disorder" can last?  Well, let me see....
>
>         There are a heck of a lot of us out there who feel that capitalism
> is one of the worst injustices ever created!  Maybe we'd even go so far as t
> say it's a "disorder".  How does that jibe with your understanding that dis-
> orders destroy societies?
>

What about societies where women are traditionally given more respect and
responsibility than in Western societies, as in Burma?  Those societies
don't last either, I suppose, Caius.   There are a lot of people in >my<
country who think giving women responsibility is the work of the Devil.

Or, what about Arab societies, where women are not allowed to have
responsibilities on a level that Western women do?  Many people feel >that<
is bad and unnatural, yet Arab culture has lasted thousands of years.

Quit using your own prejudices to justify your weird view of history,
Caius.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 15:52:32 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: RU-486 to be pushed by Clinton
              11 Dec 1992 15:41:20 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Well, the FDA has a history of holding back approval of drugs (from
thalidomide to AIDS treatments.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:54:14 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: NORNAL

Given the recent spate of postings, perhaps we can agree on this
definition: a rightist is someone who doesn't believe in irony,
and insists on the right not to define his/her terms.
HMMMmmmmmm.....
MWM
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Other People's Money
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:43:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>

I said:

> Public money is (usually) just private money that has been taken from
> the person who earned it.

KAT responds:

* And (what you think is) your money is (always) someone els's that was
* taken away from them.

Sorry, KAT, you lost me.  I read this as meaning there is no such thing
as a voluntary economic transaction. Could you please expand on your
statement?

- David

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

Well, David, are you saying that being a member of this society
is not "voluntary?"  If you are not willing to be a member, just
go live in a cabin and eat . . . what ever the other poster so
eloquently proposed.  So by being right here in the middle of
civilization and using all its fruits and exercising your right
to vote, etc., I am assuming that you "voluntarily" decided to be
a member of this society which obligates you to pitch in for its
expenses.

--KAT
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: prime theories
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:51:40 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Dec 1992 11:24:28 -0800 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

> Increasing the tax rate affects the spread between taxable interest
> paid and tax-free interest paid required to generate the same
> after-tax return.  Note that the spread depends on the payee's tax

AGAIN, that is exactly what I said.  Since incresing the tax rate
AFFECTS the spread, it is not very clear before hand whether an
increases in the tax rate would increse the amount of investment
in tax-free bonds.  To dertermine that, we need to see HOW the
spread is affected.  My guess is that it might increse it but not
by a significant amount.  (Supply and demand, you know.)

> bracket, so progressive marginal rates make tax-free investments
> better for rich people than they are for middle-income folk.  That's
> another argument against progressive marginal rates.  After all, bond
> issuers pay the same rate to rich and poor.

(Not so fast.)  THAT is another argument against tax-free bonds.

We all have heard that, "a penny saved is a penny earned."  Well,
actually a penny saved is 1+a penny earned; and that "a" depends on the
individual's tax bracket.  The more income, the higher the bracket,
and the larger "a" would be.  So, according to Andy, it seems that
the rich are actually receiving MORE benefit from the progressivity
of the tax system.  Would Andy argue that, "THAT is another argument
against progressive marginal rates?"

> -andy

--KAT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:23:29 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton's Economic Team Announced

In article <POLITICS%92121015570681@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET (David Clem) says:
>
>Gov. Clinton just announced these people for the following positions:
>
>Treasury Sec. - Sen. Lloyd Bentsen
>Dep. Treasury Sec. - Roger Altman
>Budget Dir. (OMB) - Rep. Leon Panetta
>Dep. Budget Dir. - Alice Rivlin, formerly of the Congressional Budget Office
>Economic Security Advisor - Robert Rubin
>
>- David, playing C-SPAN junkie today
>
>David Clem     $get@pccjes.bitnet

Robert Reich -- Secretary of Labour.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:49:00 EST
From:         waiting for the wolves <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      Norns and other fate-al concepts
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Caius responds to KAT:
>> Would you please define "normal."
>Homosexuals are not normal. They can do whatever they want in private,
>but I don't think we all have to consider they normal.

So whatever "normal" is, homosexuals aren't it.

Apparantly, Caius, and others on this list, see being normal as a good thing,
to the extent that they find it important to single out groups that are
not normal.  Perhaps they might elucidate on why normal is a desirable thing
to be.  Personally, I think the concept is highly overrated.

Side note: there's a city in Illinois called "Normal."  It's just one of the
many, many cities, towns, villages, and so forth that populate the state,
the rest of which have names other than "Normal."  From this, I would
conclude that "Normal" is a statistical abberation. :)

>Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl

Say, Caius, could you introduce me to those Norns?  I could go for a fateful
encounter.

Gary W. Olson                   "Santa'll cut ya, man!  Santa's a blade man!"
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU     -Crow, MST3K presentation of
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET               'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:27:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

>From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: 70% Human
>
>>That's what's relevant; obscuring the issue won't make it go away.
>>
>>
>>-T.

>Speaking of obscuring issues...when are we gonna hear you concede on
>the historian issue

>Jenna:one of the bruces


Jenna:  Read the list more carefully.  I believe my last post on the matter
included an indication that it would be, oddly enough, my last post on the
matter.

If this does not satisfy you (or any of your classmates), I believe my
grandfather had an old Navy expression that would sum it up:

                        T.S.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU