HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:36:20 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

Hi.  I wrote:
>>Well, let's be fair about the money generated from hunting/fishing revenues
>>.  Some of it goes directly to wildlife management, but that doesn't
>>necessarily mean it's being used wisely or well.  For starters, you need to
>>know what percentage of the money is going to "game" vs. "nongame" wildlife
>>programs (around here, the bulk -- if not all -- goes to "game" programs).
>>Then, you need to look at how that money is being spent.  Is it being spent
>>to maintain habitats in their "normal" condition?  To restore them?  Or to
>>alter them so as to increase the number of game species at the expense of
>>non-game species?

and -andy replied:
>It isn't clear that there's a useful distinction, at least when it
>comes to practices other than "raise prey and release it".

It may not be clear to you.  It is to me, based on my own work and
conversations with various kinds of wildlife management types.

>One of the standard lessons of "game management" is about an attempt
>to create a "in the wild" deer farm.  They tried to skew the habitat
>for deer survival, but the result was almost no deer.  The successful
>strategy is to not try to skew things.

But things get "skewed" nonetheless.

>There is a bias in that "game" programs will ignore habitats that
>don't support "game".  Since there are lots of different types of
>game, there aren't many habitats that qualify.  However, the support
>that no-game habitats get does say something about "the rest of us".

I'm not sure what the last line means.  But the problem with the first part
is that "game" programs don't necessarily focus on habitat management of
the type that would enhance habitat for all species.  Thus, for example,
the folks working in the Monongahela National Forest spend money doing
things like creating openings in lower-elevation forests to enhance turkey
and deer populations (and those of some other critters), but funding for
preserving mature red spruce (home of northern flying squirrels, among
other things) is lacking.  More generally, funding for "game" programs is
many times larger than funding for endangered species work.  I bring up the
latter because, although I deplore single-species management strategies,
endangered species are often important indicators of overall habitat
quality.

Hmmm.  You know what?  I should check to see how many game species are
critically dependent upon specific habitat types vs. the number that are
good "trash" species (capable of doing just fine -- if not extremely well -
- in degraded habitats).  That would be instructive . . .

Kerry
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Logic Coup!
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BtG8n1.JpF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes...
>Since no one has complained (well, no one important, just a couple
>of Christians, isn't that amusing?) I'm going to maintain my rule
>for a couple more days.

	No Christian complained about your "rules." The complaints 
were of a singular nature: your bigotry against Christians.

	Bigotry is usually defined as a prejudicial outlook based on 
one's race, color, creed, national origin, etc.. If you cannot see 
your bigotry that is based on creed (Christian), perhaps your same 
statement with a different element will show it better: "Well, no one 
important, just a couple of blacks, isn't that amusing?" Or, "Well, no 
one important, just a couple Jews, isn't that amusing?"

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:09:54 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS
              26 Aug 1992 09:28:38 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

Andy:

I don't want to get into theology, but I want to clear up a misconception.
The Anabaptist position is not because "all men are brothers."
Defenseless is practiced because God prohibits us from killing,
whether killing a Christian (a brother) or not.

If you want to know more about this, please mail to me personally.
(This last is directed to all.  I will not discuss this on the list,
because it is not politics.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:22:52 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?
              25 Aug 1992 13:58:17 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> I'm on the *rolls*, from your comments I assume you are too.  Pat Buchanan
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> hasn't said anything that particularly alarms me.  Maybe it's because I
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>think of myself first as an *American* and secondly as having Indian heritage.



And I know a KKK member who wasn't particularly alarmed by
the prospect of David Duke becoming president.

To know someone, just listen *carefully* to what they say.

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

Do I also take it that you are first an American and then a
Christian or is it that your morality/religion/ethnicity takes
precedent while others should be pushed under the rug.

--KAT

>---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:20:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Night 3 at the ol' RNC

julie, did lawrence welk die from aids? i didn't know that....

-linda  sometimes i wonder how come everybody knows stuff, but i haven't heard
a thing....do i have lapses?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:02:21 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      "Tie a red ribbon 'round Grandma Bush"
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Also from today's "Inc." column:

First Lady Barbar bush was wearing a red ribbon symbolizing concern for
AIDS when she was istting in the president's box @ the Repub convention.
But when she went to the podium to join the president after his speech,
the ribbon was gone...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:10:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      War between the Jasons

>From: Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>Oh, you are only worried about the rights you mentioned? For some
>reason I expected you to be concerned with all constitutional rights.

I am.  I still don't recall Buchanan saying that we should deny gays any of
their constitutional rights, and just mentioned a few particulars.  Being lazy,
I still haven't checked Peter's post (although I do have it).  If I find
anything questionable, I'll let you know.

>Here the question is whether there is what the Court calls a "rational
>basis" for the distinction. Roughly, the test is this. If there is
>some reason other than prejudice against bachelors for having differential
>tax codes, then the code does not violate equal protection. If that is
>the only reason, then it does violate equal protection.

Yeah, you're right.  This is actually the interpretation I had in mind
originally, but I neglected to include the "other than prejudice"
qualification.  I don't know all the historical basis behind the 14th
amendment, but it seems reasonable to assume that it does indeed ban outright
prejudice.

So in answer to one of your questions (and Kerry's), no, a state could not deny
blacks access to a highway or *state* employment just because to be bigoted.

In the case of gays, I don't think the "prejudice" qualification applies.
First, I'm assuming that you don't consider a condemnation of homosexuality on
religious grounds to be the same as "I don't like gays because they're
different" or some other non-sensical argument.  Of course, even if you grant
that piety does not equal bigotry, that doesn't inherently justify all the
differences with which the law treats homosexuals, but it does justify some.

Take gays adopting children, for instance.  One could argue that since the
state has an interest in keeping its wards emotionally and morally healthy,
that the state therefore has the power to stop gays from adopting children,
just as the state might prohibit a compulsive gambler or heavy drinker from
adoption.

Similar arguments apply in most other cases, but I'll let you pick a couple so
I don't have to write a treatise on justifiable legal distinctions.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

>Jamie

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:11:25 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Sgt Friday: Just the facts

Fred:

I'm just a bit confused as to what you're trying to say about Martin
Luther King, the Republican party, and the prolife plank.

Republicans have no problem with Martin Luther King.  Prolifers
consider him a hero.  They have no problem with him, either.
Do you?

I'm not getting whatever it is you're getting at.  (But I think
it's because malnutrition is starting to set in.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:37:36 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: shoah, what is politics?,
              and i'll enter the stupidest contest

anneliese:

You *like* White Castles (tm)?

You win.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:12:48 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Bus-ted

Hmm, let's see.

Sue Clark has engaged in some fairly silly name-calling, against
Democrats who are public figures. So far as I can tell, no one minded.
When she made a tiny little factual error, making fun of Clinton for
something Bush is, in fact, doing, some of our friendly Demo-defenders
pointed out her tiny little factual error.

Now she's all exasperated. And to boot, she's telling our friends to
stop slinging silly epithets.

And seems to be complaining of a double standard (though in double talk,
so it's hard to tell).

And finally adds yet another pointless reference to her ego ideal
Rush.

Ok, got it.

We now return you to the regular broadcast.






Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:07:10 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: slowly for macphil

>The original intent of the seizure law was to go after large quantity
>dealers.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that intent in the law as
written.

>The current administration has allowed that to deteriorate into
>harass anyone who is a minority member carrying large sums of cash. This
>brings some rather interesting political implications into the equation:

Except that they should be asked of the folks enforcing those laws,
which usually have no relationship to the current administration.

Almost all law enforcement is by state and local police.

>1. Why are the majority of persons searched from minority groups?

Because hassling menacing minorities is a proven vote getter.  Demos
know that at the local/state level.

>2. Why do these people have to prove that they didn't commit a crime to
>recover their property?

Because ALL crimes "by property" are treated that way.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:45:16 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: double standards in the twin cities

>I have an idea - why don't we use this list as a forum
>for flirting and inane conversation for all of us who
>don't have lives or friends - how 'bout that?  Politics
>schmolitics.  Let the subscriber beware.

now that's an idea worth pursuing! flirting and inane conversation -I LIKE IT.
i have a life, but its a small one. i have friends, but need more.

   sounds good to me . . . i've already found one babe on the list, but
 i can always use more . . . and do you mean more friends or people who
 are more than friends?

oh yeah, as to the stupidest person on the list...
well, i think everyone is absolutely brilliant (ploy to keep flirting options
open).

  *everyone*? you got some low standards, lady. of course, that's the
 way i like 'em . . .

love and kisses,

-linda  (now giving sultry look and tossing my hair in suggestive manner)

  lust and leather,
  rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:16:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

In response to my comments rejecting the thesis that some rapes
are motivated by sexual desire, Missy P 2 B responds as follows:

>Richard:

>I don't know what you're reading, but it's wrong.

        Actually, I suspect that the main reason you find my
comments mistaken is because of a tendency, common among those
who advocate that rape is only motivated by a desire to exer-
cise power and authority over another, and not a desire for
sexual gratification, is because of an oversimplified notion of
sexual desire and sexual orientation.

        Sexual orientation consists of more than simply a desire
to reach orgasm.  It is far more specific than this, defining
the physiological characteristics of a preferred sexual partner,
and the type of behavior one is prefers to engage in with that
individual, if one seeks sexual activity with a person at all.
Even this is a variable factor.  Just as a person may prefer a
male, female, child, or inanimate object one can have a preference
for certain types of activities.  Many rapists have a sexual or-
ientation which favors sex with an unwilling partner.

        Now, this may be construed as a desire to harm and/or
a desire to exercise power and authority over another.  However,
there is no contradiction in saying that the person has a SEXUAL
preference for exercising power and authority over others.  As
with all other sexual preferences, the urge to act on this desire
can be treated using methods which are effective in reducing other
types of sexual desires.

        Anyway, if you wish to challenge my claim, I am wondering
what evidence you have for believing that I am wrong.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
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:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:27:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

> > equal rights for homosexuals.  This is just plain sick.
>
> >>      why?  they are persons, are they not?  the only way to legitimately
> >>      deny them equal rights is to show that they are not persons,
> >>      (unlike us heterosexuals, who are persons).  i think that you
> >>      may find it difficult to prove this.
>
> I would think that it's generally accepted that one's rights stop where
> another's begin.  You are correct in that they are people and they do have
> rights.  You are NOT correct if you say those rights extend to the point
> that I must place my children at risk.  It seems to me that we have
> transcended the mere level of rights and have embarked upon some level of
> special privilege when my rights have actually been deemed of lesser import
> than someone else's.  Rather than take the initiative and responsibility to
> deal with the problems of homosexuality/drug addiction/AIDS we have instead
> taken the course of the ostrich.  Our society has become so preoccupied with
> the fear of offending someone that it is paralyzed when confronted with
> a basic challenge to decency.


      Are you suggesting that AIDS is a homosexual disease?  Did you know
   that statistically, heterosexual women are at the highest risk (outside
   intravenous drug users) of contracting AIDS?  And that following them
   are homosexual men, heterosexual men, and homosexual women?  AIDS IS NOT
   A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE.  I'm sorry, I have to get emphatic -- I may be
   saving your life.  The reason the homosexual population was so hard-hit
   in the beginning of the epidemic is due to promiscuity, not the kind of
   sex they were having, but how much.  Part of the reason that homosexual
   people were so promiscuous is that homosexuality has not been accepted
   by the heterosexual populace.  This reduced the places where people could
   meet each other, and discouraged couples living together for long periods
   of time (i.e. marriage).  Of course, this is only one theory, but I think
   it goes a lot farther than "blame it on the queers and the junkies".



                --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:05:33 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Regarding an asinine response

From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>

> Perhaps I should explain that my post was not my treatise on deadly force.
> It was merely a response that was off the cuff.  Many times after thinking
> something through one may form different points of view, but I had to defend
> what I wrote because that is what Jamie attacked.  So that is it as far as I
>am concerned.  I probably will continue to react and post without first giving
> an issue too much thought and I will not give up time on my home to find
> citations for Jamie.

Perhaps you shouldn't have......   :-)

How coincidental!  It was only a few days ago that a poster said,
"Give your answer but don't explain it, for your answer might be
correct and your explanation wrong."

Carl's Rule #3:  I will defend what I write even if it is proven
                 wrong to me because.....well, because I wrote it.

Carl's Rule #4:  I will not spend any time researching as long as
                 there is house-work to be done, yet I insist on
                 sending posts and engaging in political discussions.

> Carl--------+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:13:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      To Missy: On Wrongness
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>No, Richard:
>
>The question is simple.  Why are these things wrong?
>
>--Missy P 2 B

        I'll answer by claiming what it takes for something to
be "wrong."  "Wrong" is a species of "bad."  Nothing is inherently
bad--badness (and goodness) exist because aversions (and desires)
exist.  The term "wrong" appropriately applies to things to which
individuals ought to have an aversion.  That is, it appropriately
applies to things for which it is good to have an aversion.  Aversions
themselves obtain their value by their direct and indirect relation-
ship to other aversions and desires.  Moral evaluations refer to the
aversions and desires of all agents.  If we take all desires to which
genocide and using the body of another without that person's consent,
the overall value of a strong aversion to genocide and un-consenting
use of another person's body is strongly positive.

        This is a very brief.  Should The Logic Czar protest that there
are gaps in the reasoning, I answer that closing the gaps would take
considerable space, and that I do not yet have opportunity to close
them.  I would be pleased to answer questions and attempt to narrow
gaps which are of particular concern to individuals.  And, accordingly,
being a creature dedicated to reason, I would be pleased to hear any
reasons anybody might have for considering such an account to be mis-
taken.  I claim no immediate and incorrigable access to THE TRUTH.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:10:10 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Boing

Hi Sue:

Anderson's running-mate was Patrick Lucey, former governor of
Wisconsin (Democrat).

Anytime.

--Kerry at Purdue
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:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:21:32 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      two questions

Hi, y'all.  As per the subject line . . .

1)  Does anyone know of an ftp site (ugh -- I still have to use the bitnet
gateway trick) that has the texts of the Republican and Democratic
platforms?  I just hate to use snail-mail when I can use a confusing and
exasperating computerized method . . .

2)  Can anyone tell me why, when the areas around Homestead air force base
were being evacuated, the air force didn't bother to fly its planes to
someplace a bit safer?

Thanks :)
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:54:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: re: income tax

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:29:18 -0400 "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TU
LSAJC.BITNET> said:
>  Travis,
>
>  What Satanist was responsible for perpetrating the lie that wages are
>  somehow income, when in fact they are an equal exchange with no profit
>  derived by anyone.
Satanist??  You're kidding, right??
What do you think income is??  You could think of profit as the income
for the work done by the store owner in trying to sell his goods.
The 16th amendment says "income from whatever sources derived" and does
not limit itself to profit.

>  Whatever became of the Constitutional provision for taxes being
>  apportioned?
The 16th Amendment made the old provision obsolete.

>  Where is the IRS mentioned in the Constitution?
Implicitly in the elastic clause.

>
>  Where is the Constitutionally required "Gold or silver coin" with which
>  we are required to pay our State taxes?
There is none.  The Constitution says that states can not coin money.
They can still accept gold or silver, and even make it legal tender in
the state.  I don't think that provision was ever intended or taken to
mean that we had to pay state taxes in gold or silver.

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