HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:53:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colora
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

>         People don't have a *right* not to be fired.  It's the employer that
> doesn't have the *right* to fire you for a decision that doesn't affect your
> job.
>
>         A subtle, but important destinction.

But not a true one.  Current law does, in fact, recognize ones job as
property, and the loss of a job as a deprivation of property.  With
regard to the government as an employer, it means that a government
employee can't be deprived of his job without good cause, and without
the employee's equal treatment and due process rights being observed.
With regard to private employers, the actual conditions vary with the
state of local laws, but more and more courts are holding that employees
who are holding up their end of the agreement are protected from
arbitrary firing.

Besides, you can't take action against someone else for exceeding their
rights.  You _can_ take action if their actions harmed you or deprived
you of your own rights.

>         For example: housing.
>
>         If I'm renting a house, but prefer married couples, can I state that
> only married couples will be considered?
>         Is this denying anyone housing?
>
>         It depends :).  As landlord, I'd say that I had the right to choose
> whom I wanted to live in my house.  On the other hand, if there are not any
> other choices, then I am denying housing.

You are depriving them of an opportunity to get housing on an equal
basis with other citizens.  That is the damage, and it holds whether
they have alternative sources of housing available or not.  The
violation of their rights is the restriction of opportunity, which may
or may not be accompanied by more visible damage, such as the inability
to find a place to live.

If you are fired from your job as a result of an article you publish,
your right to free speech is infringed.  Even though nobody has been
prevented from reading your article, your rights have still been
violated.  And they remain violated even if you find a much better job
the very same day.

>         Does this mean I can't kick people out for using drugs?  But what abou
> when the police come by, flash a RICO warrant, and seize my property because
> the tenants were drug dealers?

Don't use one perversion of the law to argue for another perversion of
the law.  You keep that up and pretty soon there's no law left at all.

Best,
Peter

> Brett'
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, 5 Jan 1993 16:27:09 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

> (Archibald Cox, Special Prosecutor in the Watergate affair, for y'all
youngins).

This parenthetical note reminds me of one of my favorite bumperstickers
of the Nixxon era:

        "Nixon is a Cox-shucker"


>-T.

-other Andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: re: Colorado boycott
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:23:51 GMT

From Carl:
>How do you feel about laws that protect people from discrimination in
>housing and employment on the basis of religion?

Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
>Once again: I do not feel that government should force private entities to
>parti ipate in government social exercises.

So why single out people who are gay if you oppose all
antidiscrimination laws aimed at private employers and landlords?

>In government 'public' facilities
>there is an obligation to provide a non-discriminatory environment.
[...]

So why support Measure two which prohibits people who are gay from
making discrimination claims against the government-as-employer
and the government-as-landlord?

- Carl



-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET (Evelyn Duncan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:07:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              7 Jan 1993 09:35:49 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

Who cares?  A lot of people here care:  those of us who care about life
and hate to see it thrown away.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:37:25 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuality and nature/nurture
              5 Jan 1993 11:10:00 EST from <AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV>

From:         AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV

> Someone recently asked if it would undermine the sinfulness argument against
> homosexuality if we were to "discover" that it was a genetic trait, and I
> just wanted to comment that the whole nature/nurture debate seems to me to be
> a lose/lose situation.  .....................................................

Well, you are right, kind of.  To understand this we have to
find how is it that this issue is brought up.

The anti side claims it hurts people, but it really doesn't
hurt third parties and it is between consenting adults.  Then
they say it brings diseases, but it doesn't, necessarily, and
on top of that they are not willing to say that IF it didn't
cause any diseases it would have been OK. . . . In the final
analysis some anti-homosexual people are left with the fact
that it is a sin.  This weak defense tempts people to pose
the question, "but it is biological, how could it be a sin?"

Then the anti people say, "cause of some crimes is also genetic."
Then it is pointed out that crimes, for the most part, hurt
other people and homosexuality does not.  Then the anti people
point to the decay of morality and AIDS and ..........

> --Anjani

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:43:50 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      righ-left contest
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> To all:
>
> Please define THE RIGHT (rightist, right-wing etc)
>               THE LEFT  (letfist, left-wing)
> I would like to see simple, clear definition. not a "you know common usage",
> "1024 experts say this", "you don't understand this", "Humty-Dumpty theories"
> Just tell me what are those terms, how do you undersatand them, or I will
> assume you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Simple statements and short academic disseratation will be appreciated.

I'm down with that.

OK, here's the difference, as I understand it, between contemporary
'left-wingers' and 'right-wingers':

'Right-wingers' believe in laissez-faire economics, meaning government
should have no hand in the economy. They tend to support government
intervention in non-economic areas, such as crime, drugs, abortion,
pornography, privacy, etc., although some notable examples believe
the government has no place there. William F. Buckley is for marijuana
legalization (I don't know about other drugs) and William Weld, the
governor of Mass., is pro-choice and (I believe) supports homosexual
rights, at least to some extent.

'Left-wingers' believe in intervention in the economy. I guess they
see the economy as a means to an end, not an end to itself. For
example, deficit spending brought the US out of the Great Depression,
but now it is hurting the economy, so every 'left-wing' politician
is at least giving lip service to the deficit, if not actually trying
to lower it. In both the economic and non-economic realms, the 'left-
wingers' try to bring about a 'fairness' based on broad philosophical
beliefs, such as 'no one should have to live in fear,' etc. When
implementing this philosophy, 'left-wingers' come at some seeming
contradictions: Legalizing drugs but no smoking. Anyone can have
sex but no pornography. Freedom of expression but don't say anything
offensive. Personal responsibility but no one can responsibly handle
guns.

Any questions?

> Caius

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
We are living in a revolutionary situation.
              --Henry Kissinger

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:30:01 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      I'm thinking of a number...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>>>    You're arguing apples and oranges.  To meet EEOC guidelines there have
>>>to be some minorities.  The quesiton is: how many?

>>That's what I (and others) have been asking you, "how many?"

>>You hold onto this quota thing with the same dogged don't-bother-me-with-the-
>>facts-please tenacity that Robert holds onto his belief in god. At least
>>Robert can tell you where it is written that his god approves/disapproves
>>this that or the other. B)

>        Check out the Bakke case, if you still don't understand.
>        Actually, it's your objections that continue to be filled with "I don't
>accept that as a fact, so you'll have to try again".

You have made assertions that the government imposes racial "quotas", I have
challenged your assertion - I have asked you to provide evidence in the
form of an actual quota that is in use; you have provided some sort of
anecdotal evidence that there is a *belief* among employers that there
are quotas, therefore there must be quotas...I think the logic czar
would disapprove of this construction of yours.

>        I'm not here to serve as your researcher.

I'm not asking you to be my researcher, I am asking you to either substantiate
your assertion or withdraw it.


>>Where in the official literature (law, regulations, court decisons,
>>memos from high officials even) is it written what percentage of minorities
>>a given employer must hire/promote? 5%, 10%, what?

>        The laws are vague, because of instances like Bakke.

"Quotas" are not vague; a "quota" represents an actual, verifiable number.


>        Answer this question:

>        If the various civil rights bills are sufficient for equality, why is
>there still inequality?

Even the best written law will not necessarily change the minds of those to
whom it is applied. To dredge up a previous argument, there are plenty of
laws against murder, have been for years, why do we still have murders?

Just because a law does not acheive total effectiveness does not imply
that it is a bad law, that it should be scrapped or that the system
which makes/enforces it is not valid.

If you have a better idea of how to create actual equality and equality
of opportunity, then let us hear it.

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:01:21 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 22:23:51 GMT from "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@EFF.ORG>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/04/93 16:32

From Carl
So why single out people who are gay if you oppose all
antidiscrimination laws aimed at private employers and landlords?

From Robert
Stop defending the gay lifestyle and I won't have to keep pointing out that
it is perversion.  I haven't singled out homosexuality, it has just been
the central point of this discussion.

From Carl
So why support Measure two which prohibits people who are gay from
making discrimination claims against the government-as-employer
and the government-as-landlord?

From Robert
I don't care if gays file claims against the government for discrimination.
As to the content of Measure 2, I'd like to see it.

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to post the 2 pages from NY public
school curriculum that caused such a furor.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:05:44 EST
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: toddddddd's observation

>Todd says that second hand smoke is dangerous in the home but not in
>well ventilated large areas. Obviously, Todd doesn't visit any of the
>bars that i go to. I am a lifetime nonsmoker who enjoys blues so I go

If the smoke is a problem then the bar is obviously not well ventilated.

When this thread started someone mentioned the threat of lawsuits, against
proprietors of establishments that allow smoking, from diseased non-smokers
who will blame the proprietor of negligence for allowing patrons to be
exposed to second hand smoke.  I saw a lawyer on one of the news shows
last night who said that such suits are often hard to win, even with
this finding by the EPA.  I wonder if the proprietor could protect
himself from lawsuits by installing air filtration/cleaning systems.
Ala, a restaurant is sued but the owner placed one air cleaner for
every two tables in the smoking section to filter air before it
reaches the non-smoking section.  Should that be enough to deflect
claims of negligence?
   toddddddddddd

>Even restaruants that try to segregate smokers from nonsmokers often
>have the areas very close together.
>
>fred

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "Some men will rob you with
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   a six gun, some with a
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    fountain pen." - W GUTHRIE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:42:43 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: DC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >>Same thing for DC statehood.
>
> >        Give it back to Maryland.
>
> No thanks, the last thing that Maryland needs is yet another city that
> has been destroyed by idiot politicians, that will take billions to fix.
>
> Let's give it to Ohio.  B)
>
> >Brett'
>
> -other Andy
>
Well, it's obvious why the Republicans don't want it to be it's own
state.  Aside from the very liberal people who are elected to city
council, they voted 80+% for Clinton in the November election.  So, you'd
have 2 more senators voting Democratic and 1 more congressman.

Of course, it is a city of well over 500,000 people and I believe that there
are more people in DC than there are in Montana.  And right now, they
don't have any voice in congress.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:12:52 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon

>From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be" <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
>1.      Conviction of a criminal offense does not automatically remove the
>President of office (which would terminate power to pardon), but impeachment
>proceedings would probably begin immediately if Congress convened.

I don't think that there IS such a thing as a conviction of a president
before impeachment. Impeachment must proceed a trial of the president.
And impeachment removes him from office.

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

The pardon power does not extend to "sitting officials" who would have
to be impeached. For example, to judges.

My counterfactual prediction is that Bush could not get away with
pardoning himself, no matter how tricky he was about it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:27:23 EST
From:         Thomas Varouhakis <varouhak@ICARUS.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
Subject:      Re: War in Europe
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>
>         I don't usually watch M/L.  It interferes with reruns of Cheers :).
>
> Brett'
> (What did they say?)
>

McNeil/Lehrer is an absolute minimum; Foreign Affairs -even biased-
goes a little deeper, and after that it's history books from many
perpsectives -no easy task indeed-.

Of course then there's junk mail -totally effortless-; unfortunately
it's just that: junk.

Thomas-
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:15:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: A Confused, But Delighted Return

>I went away, leaving a discussion about the WWF and real "sports."

you can start the subjects up again....its okay, everybody recycles debates here
-i don't know why, maybe short attentions spans?

>I return to discussions of the morality of homosexuality !

yup, see? perfect example.
we even have a recurring argument about not arguing anymore about certain
arguments.

>This list isn't quite what I expected, but I'm not saying that like
>it is bad !

yes, a unique, diverse, and cute group of people....and i bet the only list
with a friday beer countdown.

>Happy new year to all !

hope your holiday was happy too.

-linda

>P.S. Ruckman Jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:51:04 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

>From:         Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

>Why should stable prices be utopian?  Prices need to be flexible to
>transmit information.  I recommend Hayek's 1948 article (AER) "On the
>Use of Knowledge in Society" for a simple exposition.

Hardly simple.
For one thing, Hayek is awfully vague as to what the information is
*about*. And he doesn't explain very well how prices convey that
information.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:32:12 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

From Robert
>Would the average African participant admit homosexuality/bisexuality?

From Sam
In many African cultures sex between two men or two women is not frowned
upon. The fact itself doesn't make the participants homosexual. As you
surely know, people are born gay. Being gay means being physically
attracted to the people of the same sex (for biological reasons).
Just having sex with the person of the same sex doesn't make anyone
gay. Very often heterosexual men have sex with other men only because
they are curious and want to find out what it feels like. In other words,
it is quite possible and natural that many African men don't consider
themselves homosexual even if they ocassionally have sex with other men.
In many prosons male inmates have sex with each other because there are
no women available. Most of them, of course are heterosexual men.
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:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:26:38 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Jan 8, 93 11:39 am

>
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:13:11 EST K=A*T said:
> > >Anyway, Evelyn's criticism should be against the state of
> > >Ohio not Kevorkian.
> >
> > As for the state of Ohio, a number of leading lawmakers here (from the
> > governor on down) have gone on record of opposing Kevorkian.  The
> > Summit County prosecutor, Lynn Slaby, has said that he will charge
> > Kevorkian with practicing without a license if Kevorkian holds
> > consultations with people.
> This is the Polically Correct thing to do.  The other prosecutor said
> the same thing, even after it was proven to him that he couldn't win
> the case.
> >
> > As for Kevorkian himself, if his patients are ONLY the terminally ill,
> > then I have no quarrel with him.  But, I'm worried about the mentally ill,
> > the alcoholic or drug addicted, or teenagers who have decided to kill
> > themselves.  Shouldn't they be helped through their problems instead of
> > helping them to kill themselves?
> Well Evelyn, since Dr. Kevorkian isn't helping the above named people
> kill themselves, then you don't have any worries. He ONLY helps the
> terminally ill.
> > >
> > >--KAT
> >
> > Evelyn
> >
> Jonathan
>
I think that it might be important to add that Kevorkian assists those with
diseases that aren't terminal, only chronic. These individuals are in pain, but
is it proper to assist these people in ending their lives? I question whether
it is. Terminal illness is one thing but chronic pain? Why not allow the
chronically depressed to commit suicide as well - they're in pain as well are
they not? It is evident that some sort of regulations are needed to limit
people like Kevorkian from killing those who are not terminally ill.

- Dan
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, 5 Jan 1993 17:04:43 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      fascism/communism definition
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG" at Dec 22, 92 4:29 pm

BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG pisze:
>>
>> Sometimes Milosevic is called 'a fascist'. If it is just an emotional
>> statement, I don't disagree with it. But, strictly speaking, Milosevic
>> can not be called 'a fascist' because it would contradict the definition
>> of fascism. In my view, fascism is a dictatorship based on the market
>> economy. Communism, as opposed to fascism is a dictatorship based on
>> state-controlled economy.

I cannot agree with these definition. I find BOTH fascism and communism
to be dictatorships based on state-controlled economy. The problem is
state control cannot be introduce in ONE day or ONE year.

So the difference is duration of
 fascism in Italy      (1922-43)      21 years
 nazism  in Germany    (1933-45)      12 years
 communism in Russia   (1917-90)      73 years
 communism in E.Europe (1945-89)      55 years

Economy in Russia is just *better* controled. The communist in E.Europe tried
to introduce perfect control of the economy  with the help of the Russian
friends, and they failed (for example agriculture was mostly in private hands
in Poland and Yugoslavia).

Most of your views on Nazi Germany economy are on the 1933-39 period. The Nazis
didn't managed to strictly control the economy, but they worked hard and
successfully (especially in the war industries - they were perfectly planned)

>> Sam.

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