HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:17:52 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Ms. perception

Hi, linda :)
Hey, you're right -- what *did* happen to those people?  I understand that
they split up, but then what?

I can probably start virtual work at the virtual beer stand whenever the
first game is.  And I was hoping *you* had a good falafel recipe -- I cheat
and use packaged mixes.  Oh, and on the spelling thing -- near as I can
tell, falafel has as many alternate spellings as Hannukah :)

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:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:32:07 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET" at Jan 23, 93 8:19 pm

>
> 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.
>

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).

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:11:31 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: states rights and federal funding
              25 Jan 1993 08:43:10 -0500 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

Kerry:

Thanks for asking.  I put IMHO into the response because it is *not*
a judicial interpretation, merely an observation on human nature.

I do not believe that the intention of the Founders was to subjugate
the states, merely to unite them.  The Bill of Rights applied originally
to the Federal government alone, and was intended to curb them
excessive impulse of a centralized government to act *on* the states
and the people, rather than *for* them.

To enforce the will of the Federal government upon the states implies
the assumption that control (on that issue) is better exercised by
a centralized government than a local one.  There are, indeed,
large and necessary projects that only a larger government is capable
of undertaking; however, regulation of individual behavior is not
one of them.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:02:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      No Mail

  I do not know if it is just my site or what, but I am not getting any
of this morning/afternoon's mail.

I gues I have Kerryitis (Kilburn) that is.

CARL---+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:23:24 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
              25 Jan 1993 18:11:47 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:11:47 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>And as people sell securities more than they intended they would
>>pay higher capital gains tax and hence revenues will be enhanced.
>>
>>--KAT
>
>  The selling takes place before the tax rate goes into effect.  Usually,

Before OR after, what's the difference?  The revenues goes
up as a RESULT of increasing the rates.  So I was right.

>however, the amount of selling does not significantly change that year's
>numbers.  The point is that the next year (and successive years) will see a
>decline and/or leveling off of revenues.  This is at the expense of less
>capital available to the companies, also.

It is amazing that this claim is made many times but one
rarely sees the proof.

>
>        Maximizing revenues and maximizing rates usually don't coincide.
>
>Brett'

Not "usually" but rather never.  They NEVER coincide.
Maximizing rates means a 100% tax which would probabely
bring no revenues.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:35:12 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        So far, the only ones to characterize the Gulf War as a video-game war
>>have been the left (or liberal, or whatever term you'd like to use :).
>
>Accurate statement, but unnecessarily ad hominem.

        Not meant to be so.  Just faster than typing in "insert term you feel
best describes the politics of those who did so" :).

        Seeing as you have used liberal, I felt the optioning of that choice
would make clear my intent.

        Alas, I failed in my endeavor.

>Besides that, there was a major difference in the news images of Vietnam and
>Desert Storm, although the opposing casualty counts were probably comparable.
>                                                        Dan, ad nauseum

        I think the change in broadcast technology ("Live from Kuwait, it's
Late Night with the 7th Marine Amphibious Assualt Brigade!!!"), it's simply not
feasible to risk troops to someone with the mentality of (say) Geraldo.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:05:25 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam

Hi Folks:

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?

For example, did anyone count the number of times we were treated to an
interchange like this:

MILITARY GUY:  (pointing at map)  Our operation yesterday, which was
 executed without any major damage to allied forces, involved the
 destruction of this site, here.

PRESS GUY:  Is that in Iraq?

MG:  Uh, well, yes.  To continue.  This site is believed to be a major
  production site for illegal chemical warfare material--

PG:  Would that be illegal production or illegal chemicals?

MG:  Well, the production of these chemicals is, technically speaking,
  banned under Convention 659--

PG:  Could you spell that?

MG:  Spell what?

PG:  659.

MG:  (irritated)  No.  Are there any more questions?

PG:  Sir, could you tell us exactly when and where we will strike next?

MG:  Well, no.  We cannot, as you know, disclose information relating to
  ongoing operations--

PG:  But if they haven't started yet, why can't you tell us?

MG:  Clearly, an ongoing OR potentially imminent operation is inappropriate
   for general disclosure to the press--

PG:  You can't tell us because you don't know, or because you're
  concealing information from the American people?

MG:  (closing briefing book)  This press conference is ended.


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.

Annoy the media; read a book.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:30:26 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

>>>The article said that the Environmental Protection Agency estimates
>>>that second hand smoke kills about 3,000 non-smokers annually.
>>
>>So?  (Suppose that 90% choose to live with a smoker.  Does that
>>matter?)
>>
>>-andy notes that 3,000 is still at least an order of magnitude
>>      less than MD's kill through "misadventure"
>>
>
>-andy's note makes it clear that he's talking about physician
>malpractice deaths...not just deaths while under the care of a
>physician.

Good - Clark is learning to read.

>Still waiting for the numbers that prove such a ludicrous claim,
>-andy....

What - Clark doesn't know the literature, or where to look?  Since
he'd have to go to the library to chase the cite, he can look in the
obvious places and find it himself.

>Also waiting for the explanation as to why that is relevant to
>the discussion about passive smoking

It places the number in perspective.  3,000 deaths doesn't justify
doing much to a population of 250 million people.  Suppose we value
those lives at $1M each, that's $3B, which is basically pocket change.
If we can't save those lives for less than $1M, we shouldn't try.  If
those people choose their fate, we shouldn't try.  (Consider it
another form of slow suicide.)

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:14:59 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Furtherance of a discussion ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

<Caius>
>The essence of the Right is to support free-market and property rights for
>everybody not for a group...
        Uh, excuse me?  From this argument, it would seem that there exists out
in the world a distinct political entity known as the "Right"  WRONG!
 Dave, you did a good job on this guy, but you seemed to miss this glaring
error.  Being on the Right or the Left is defined by the situation, and the
parties in question-i.e. in the failed coup in the SU a while back, Gorbachev
was distinctly to the left of the coup plotters, while in his dealings with
Yeltsin, he was to the right of his former deputy...  To say that the Right
stands foursquare in the corner of property rights is kind of like saying
the Chicago Bulls only play the Det. Pistons during the basketball season.
        In the future Caius, try to notice the fluidity of terminology, otherwis
you'll
 never get a point across...

                                                        Travlr
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 19:00:28 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

Jamie, come on:

You don't understand "declare war?"

Does the phrase, "Hi, there.  We are now at war with you, whether you
want to play or not," ring a bell?

It's a pretty simple concept, and yes, it does require another party
against whom to declare.  Once the Congress has declared it,
(or passively accepted the President's decision to act militarily),
it's up to the President to determine how it gets done.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:22:51 EST
From:         Christian Gillstrap <cgillstr@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Well he said that Hilary would have to file report within the first 100 days.
I'm not sure if it's much as a report as a plan of action.  What disturbs me
is the fact that the president and the media have been making a major issue
out of this question, and now instead of his personal action, he's passing
the buck if you will to his wife Hilary.  That kind of disturbs me, in that I
had the impression that this was a personal "vendetta"
  As for his more govern-ment is better policy. Here's my opinion, I'm 19 years
old, I have never lived under any other democratic president except Jimmy
Carter, I've lived from the time periods of Nixon to now Clinton, I really
can't base my opinon then on the more government is better issue, that seems to
 be a trend in the democratic party, I don't know what it will do to america now
(although I can speculate) Anyone know of any trends?



Christian M Gillstrap
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:26:19 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Possibly.  The newspaper account I have doesn't mention when the new
>evidence was found relative to the original conviction and subsequent
>appeals.  If it was found 31 days after, then, as I understand it, Herrera
>would still be out of luck.  I think I agree with Dunstan on this one --

        From what I've heard, the ruling is explicity addressing the case where
the criminal has exhausted all other appeals, then makes a claim of innocence.
        He originally pleaded guilty (I believe).

>even if the guy were already executed, new evidence should have its day.

        New evidence, yes.  But not necessarily a claim of innocence.  Ted
Bundy was claiming that at the end also.

>In this case, I don't see how justice is being prevented by looking at the
>new evidence and deciding whether or not it's sufficient for a new trial.
>I sure don't see how this decision is "just" in any sense of the word that
>I'm familiar with.
>
>Kerry

        I have to side with the justices on this one.  If you are innocent, you
certainly don't wait until the eve of you death to say "hey, guys, I was
framed!".  It's just another tactic to get yet another appeal.
        After all, why would anyone plead guilty *knowing* they could get the
death sentance, and then wait until their execution was near to claim
innocence?

        It's just to surreal.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:33:34 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Monday musings
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Brett' is allegedly interested in examples of US war crimes or failure
>to comply with UN resolutions. How about the mining of harbors in

        No, it's not "...failure to comply", it's war crimes.

        Unless, of course, we're going to use Ramsey's definition: any action
taken by the US.
:)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:30:58 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Economic Rights and the Court

>>OK, so what's the purpose of the medallions?
>
>I think it's that a cab is not allowed to pick up passengers
>who just flag the cab down, rather than calling the cab
>company to request a cab, unless it has a medallion. Ugh.
>What I mean is, only medallion cabs are allowed to pick
>up passengers off the street; cabs without medallions must
>wait for a radio call.
>
>Maybe Rick the New Yorker can say for sure whether that's right.
>
>Jamie


Yes, that's essentially correct.  Dinkins had talked about (I'm not
sure if it ever got to the point of a formal proposal) changing the law
to allow non-medallion cabs (so called "Gypsy" cabs) to pick up passengers
above a certain street in Manhattan (I think that it was something like
96th or maybe even the north side of Central Park), but only medallion
cabs can pick up street hails in Manhattan.  I think that gypsies can
pick up street hails in the other boroughs.

Because their numbers are limited, medallions are very valuable.

There are also car services, which you can call on the telephone and
they come pick you up.  They tend to have corporate clients.

Both the medallion cabs and the car services are regulated by the NYC
Taxi and Limousine Commission.

...Rick
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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:09:00 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: states rights and federal funding

Hi again :)
>Thanks for asking.  I put IMHO into the response because it is *not*
>a judicial interpretation, merely an observation on human nature.

Yes, I understood that from the original post :)

>I do not believe that the intention of the Founders was to subjugate
>the states, merely to unite them.  The Bill of Rights applied originally
>to the Federal government alone, and was intended to curb them
>excessive impulse of a centralized government to act *on* the states
>and the people, rather than *for* them.

I don't know much about intent, but couldn't it be that, in addition to the
intentions you mention (which sound eminently reasonable to me), the
Founders also intended to secure basic individual rights to all citizens,
regardless of which state they lived in?

>To enforce the will of the Federal government upon the states implies
>the assumption that control (on that issue) is better exercised by
>a centralized government than a local one.  There are, indeed,
>large and necessary projects that only a larger government is capable
>of undertaking; however, regulation of individual behavior is not
>one of them.

And, if part of the intent was to secure basic individual rights, would
that perhaps fall under the category of "large projects only a larger
government is capable of. . .?

What do you think?

Kerry
not NINAR Kerry :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:08:09 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> What crisis do you forsee arising(or even being possible)
> in the near future(our lifetime) that would require
> a "real" military?

I hate to bring this up, but I know Jay or someone else will
just bring it up for me:

That's what they said in 1945, 1917, 1865, etc etc etc.

The conservatives will often tell you that the military gets
cut to the bone at the end of one fight and caught off guard
at the beginning of the next, due to budget cuts.

> I don't think that any of the things the US military is
> doing right now would qualify.

Well, I don't know how much of a military would be necessary
to keep the Missouri River from flooding, but they seem to be
doing a fairly good job right now.

> I ask this because the only situation which I think
> would justify a large military right now is the threat
> of an invasion of the continental US.

Wars are people-intensive propositions. Even "police actions"
tend to be people-intensive. The current military strategy seems
to be "have enough there to put a stop to whatever goes on QUICK."
This takes a lot of people to do.

Given a perfect world, I would not want a military. After
spending 18 years of my life as a military dependant, I can
think of no dumber decision in my life than joining the army.
However, this does not mean that there is no purpose to an army.

> jbc

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:08:25 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military

Excuse me, Andrew:

Could you please explain why privacy would be an equivalent concern
regarding skin color as it would be regarding a behavior that involves
sexual activity?

Thanks.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:02:34 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Reunion on the Mall
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Jonathan, who didn't sign his post, says,

>  I was surprised to find NONE of the Lincoln Memorial
> concert on any station EXCEPT HBO!  Then I find out that the
> Inaugural committee sold the exclusive broadcast rights to HBO
> for $1.5 million.  Tell me that this isn't just more of the
> same old stuff with a different (democratic) label!
>

HBO unscrambled their signal for this event.  'Course you still
have to get cable, but since over 80% of the population gets cable
it's pretty open to everyone.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:58:35 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Return of the shadow government

For you newbie politickers, JSS's former claim to fame is as head of
the shadow government. I seem to recall some discussion about a child
produced through the assistance of a certain outspoken redhead dwelling
in the great white north. :)

I think Leise's posting about her "pipes bursting while she was in
chicago" was a coded statement foretelling the return of the shadow
government. :)


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