HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:11:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: freedom from discrimination

>>case in point - the military. individuals may be prejudiced, but
>>the system is purely color-blind. you go exactly as far as your merit
>>and determination take you. or is there a problem here i'm missing?

>The military seems to be one of the society's success stories vis-a-vis
>racism, though I base this not on personal experience, but on hearsay
>evidence. Consider however the flap about gays in the military; do

if the military is color-blind *now*, it wasn't always so....if i remember
correctly, there were "black troops" and white troops during WWII. there were
also separate units for amer. indians. i don't think things began to change
until Korea, but i'm not sure if things were fully integrated until Vietnam.


>To sum up, if you want to create equality and equality of opportunity
>you need to change minds moreso than laws; until then there is some
>efficacy in having laws.

i agree w/ other andy....if discrimination is acceptable legally, people will
discriminate openly and blatantly as they did before affirmative action, quotas,
etc. with these laws, those people who were discriminated against finally had
recourse....finally had the law to back them up, even if it was flawed.

these laws don't make people stop being bigots, but it makes them stop acting
on their bigotry *openly* in the workplace, etc.

of course, there are always ways around anti-discrimination laws, but that takes
effort on the part of the employer or housing concern. if that effort is not
worth it in terms of cost and time spent in trying to circumvent them,
compliance may be just plain easier (and cost effective).

since the 60's and affirmative action, things have gotten better for minorities
and women. not great, just better. that didn't happen because of some social
awakening....people, companies and the government were dragged kicking and
screaming the whole bloody way. what is discouraging, is this backlash to rid
the country of the tools that have helped. the problem ain't fixed yet, and if
you get rid of the few nails and screws holding blatant -no,*sanctioned*
discrimination at bay, the whole thing will collapse in no time.

personally, i think the idea that we *need* quotas is too bad. but, as of now,
its just about all that stands between a lot of people and their jobs and homes.

-linda

>>rtf

>-other Andy
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:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:50:19 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      German crash scenario
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              at Jan 7, 93 8:23 pm

Stephan Melin pisze:
>> |> The problem is the majority of the voters are NOT economists. And majority
>> |> of the economists does NOT understand inflation.
>> But the voters will recognize, when a government, does its "best" to ruin the
>> economy.

I am not sure about it. We, in Poland, are very concerned about the situation
in Germany, as it is our biggest trading partner, and biggest neighbour.

Here is the crash scenario, which is very probable:

PHASE ONE
Goal: raising living standards in East Germany
Method: transfer of money from West to East
Result: West Germans angry about the high taxes
        East Germans angry about the low living standard
        No recovery in the East, more trouble in the West, higher and higher
        inflation

PHASE TWO
Situation: More people join Nazi riots. More anti-Nazi protest are organized
        More and more inflation

PHASE TREE (general election - winter 1993/94)

CSU: had a chance, has NOt solved the problems
SDP: more social programmes, more socialism in economy
Neo-nazi: blame the foreigners

PHASE FOUR

SDP (social-democrats) win the election, and form the government.
Economic program: more regulation of the economy, more social programs to
help the poor, more money transfers to the East, higher taxes.

Result: GNP falling in Germany for the first time since the war,
       some 'raise wages' strikes, the workers gov't will not use force
       against the workers, more strinkes
       more political riots, police uses guns agains the rioters, 143 killed
       across the country

PHASE FIVE

SDP divides into two factions:
left - continue socialist reforms, do not use force
right- declare anti-strikers, anti-nazi law

PHASE SIX (general elections - winter 1993/94)

Neo-nazis           55 %
SDP-left             5 %
SDP-right           10 %
CDU                 20 %
other               10 %

The Nazis introduce anti-foreinger law, special "recovery" programmes,
censorship "to prevent violence", ...

You know the rest.

----------------------------

It was the worst possible scenario, I think is it real. I hope it can be
prevented.

Tell me what you think.

Caius
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Pardon me. No, pardon me!
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:57 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92123117422940@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,        
 K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes...
>From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be" <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
> 
>. . . . 
>> Flaw in your logic:  Foley is next in line, not Baker.
>. . . 
>No! President Quayle's vp would be next in line.

But -- Quayle can't appoint a VP because Congress isn't in session to confirm.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:47:16 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: homosexuality and genetics

From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> ....................  That is one reason I am opposed to laws that would
> differentiate between murder for money and murder for race, etc.  The act
> is wrong and should be punished in like manner, to do otherwise is to
> devalue one of the victims.

> An action carries certain results, should it matter *why* the action was
> taken?  ..............................................................

There is a big flaw here.  Killing in self defense also results
in death but in that case it DOES "matter *why* the action was taken."

> This entire EXCUSE approach defies the existence of absolute right and
> wrong.  It also flushes the concept of responsibility right down the
> krapper.

Interesting that you mentioned this.  I just send a post in which
I asked why you "EXCUSE" the dishonest action of the husband
who would not tell his wife he has aids but blame homosexuality/
bisexuality for it.

> ---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:14:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      philosopher cards - starter set

Socrates      - bats right, throws left
Plato         - ideal infielder, critical of his coaches
Aristotle     - great runner (better, for example, than Socrates)
Nietzsche     - best pitch: screwball, fans love him, hard to control
Descartes     - thinks, then is a batter, strikes out a lot
Schopenhauer  - on injured reserve list : cites depression
Hegel         - constantly opposes decisions of ump, then asks ump to
                   consider alternative compromise call
Rousseau      - noble, but savage coach, hates base stealing
Machiavelli   - does anything to win, loves stealing (when necessary)
Hobbes        - monster 1st baseman, team captain, believes any play-
                   er can do anything to any other player before the
                   ump comes on the field
Locke         - thinks players have "rights" before ump comes on the
                   field, likes stealing - if it is good for the team
Hume          - does not believe ball really curves, never asks ump
                   to explain calls, would steal if he though he
                   was actually capable of it
Bentham       - perceives turf as proof there is no god
From: caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL (Grzegorz Albinowski)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: free-market
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:52:22 GMT
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]
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Sam writes
>> On the economic level fascism is free market plus a strong regulating
>> role of the state.

The economy can be either
1 - free-market OR
2 - strongly regulated by state (mixed economy) OR
3 - totally controled by the state

Both (1) and (2) is a nonsense. Fascism, from economic point of view,
is moving from (2) to (3)

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:50:03 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > >Jenna, those women weren't dying.  None of them were suffering from a
> > >terminal disease.  If they were, I would understand why they wanted to
> > >die.

> > I have to take issue with this; although it's possible that everything I've
> > read and seen about Jack Kevorkian is completely false, I believe that
> > Evelyn is mistaken.  In fact, I was under the impression that was the key
> > requirement for him to become involved: being terminally ill.
> > Am I mistaken?

> I don't think so.  My opinion is as your's is.

As I recall, those who have died with the help of Dr. Kevorkian were
terminally ill and preparing to die in a more painful way. It might
have been just that they had a debilitating illness and could look
forward only to a life of no freedom and large medical bills.

I find it inhumane to force people to live (and pay doctors to make
them live) longer than they wish to live. Some have said that Dr.
Kevorkian talks these 'patients' into killing themselves, but I
don't believe it.

I had two great-uncles, Carl and Sigurd. They ran a farm in western
Minnesota. Sigurd went up to the hayloft one day and died. Carl had
a stroke and lives in a nursing home in Ivanhoe, being pushed in a
wheelchair and wearing a catheter because he has no control of his
functions.

Now, I'm not saying that I wish that Carl would die, but I do think
that he would rather have died like he lived, like his brother
Sigurd died. I could not force myself to stand in the way of anyone
who decidedto die like that.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds.
              --Albert Einstein
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, 12 Jan 1993 08:54:14 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      good, bad, and ugly :)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
The bad news is I'm home with strep throat; the good news includes (1) my
daughter doesn't have it; (2) I'm spared from trying to register new
students for classes that start tomorrow (and trying to explain that all
the classes they need have been closed since November); and (3) I got to
watch some of Panetta's confirmation hearings on CSPAN.

Anyway, here are some miscellaneous questions, posers, queries, responses,
etc.

First, why did I get to watch nearly all of Panetta's confirmation hearings
but *none* of Carol Browner's?  I mean, she didn't get more than a "oh,
yeah, her hearings were today also" on the news.  Oh, well.

Second, why is no one saying anything (on the list, I mean) about Iraq's
most recent incursions into Kuwait?

Peter: great post on a.a.  Thanks!

Robert M.:  I meant to mention, in response to one of the "school daze"
posts, that *all* education, as far as I know, is "outcomes based."  Think
about it.  What seems to change over time is the outcomes we think are most
desirable and the ways in which we assess students relative to those
outcomes.  Now, we may find fault with both the current outcomes and the
assessment process -- but I think we possibly agree that both outcomes and
assessment methods *should* be subject to periodic review, revision and
change.  Yes?

As far as the business about homework goes -- I think several folks (among
them KAT and linda) have alluded to why homework may not always be a good
assessment tool.  My daughter's homework assignments are largely
meaningless.  If she can "absorb 80% of the content" without filling out
homework sheets, shouldn't she be spared the busywork?  I hasten to add
here that I see nothing wrong with the idea that neatness and thoroughness
are worthwhile -- to me, they reflect pride in one's work.  Thus, even
though much of  my daughter's homework is really stupid, I try to help her
find *some* value in it, and encourage her to do the work well.  But I'd
really prefer meaningful assignments that help her learn more than the
ability to withstand tedium.

Time for a nap :)  Watch this space for a question about a "takings" suit
and private property rights.

Later,
Kerry
From: SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET (bone machine)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: the caius hokey-pokey
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:57:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Caius:
>Thank you for quoting the definition of fascism (the wrong one is better than
>none; it can be discussed), but rightism is still undefined.
>I have asked to define "rightism", not the references of usage.

If I was interested in what you have asked, I would have answered it.  As such,
my only purpose in posting a dictionary definition of fascism was to send
Ramon a message: "I tried the dictionary, too.  It didn't work."

>Under this definition ( i assume the authors of POLITICS guides more
>authoritative) fascism has nothing to do with rightism. and in fact is slighly
>leftish.

You assume incorrectly.  The definitions were written by John Kelsey, and
were originally just another posting to politics.  Lois, who owned the
politics list at the time, liked the list enough to include it on the
fileserver.  I also included it in the politics FAQ.

As for your definitions of rightism and leftism, feel free to use them as
you will.  Just don't expect me to respond to the silly claims you base on
them.

>Caius

>BTW: The definition file should be sent automatically to all new subscribers,
>it would save us much efforts.

As I said, the definition file is part of the FAQ, and will be sent to the
list on the 15th of each month.

Gary W. Olson
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET
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, 9 Jan 1993 20:25:57 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: allowing floor votes by territory reps
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 9, 93 11:56 am

 It would seem to me that this idea of allowing territorial representatives to
vote violates the Constitution. It also violates historical precedence since
there have been territories previously that were'nt given this luxury.

What's the point of applying for statehood if all the benefits thereof are
granted in this manner?

- Dan








>
> Brett', responding to KAT:
> >>I like to hear objections to this move based on principles and
> >>the fact that it might violate the Constitution, not things
> >>like, "...well, if the votes are Democratic, then it must be
> >>a bad decision."
> >        Who has made that charge?
>
> Numerous congressional republicans, if I recall the NPR report I heard
> correctly.  I'll have to go get a newspaper to scope the names, but the
> situation is something like this:
>
> By Article I, Sections 2-3 of the Constitution, only States are to send
> representatives and senators.  This is currently taken to mean that only
> congressbeings from the 50 States are allowed to vote on the floor, official-
> like.  Congressbeings from territories, including American Samoa, Puero
> Rico, and so on, are not allowed to vote on the floor, but do currently work
> and vote in various committees and subcommittees.
>
> What is being proposed is that these particular Congressbeings be allowed to
> vote in the "Committee of the Whole", that is, the whole group of either
> representatives or senators, as the case may be.  This "committee" does, I
> think, do the final work on the bills before they are officially submitted
> for an official vote, which the territorial Congressbeings can't participate
> in.  (Presumably, the Committee of the Whole can also keep bills from
> being submitted, thus the power of increasing the Democratic share in this
> group).
>
> Congressional Republicans charge that this proposal w
> Constitution, as it would give the territorial Congressbeings a vote on all
> bills submitted, and thus give them a de facto "official" vote.
>
> (I know all that is vague above - anyone who can correct the grosser
> deficiencies in the above paragraphs is welcome to do so).
>
> So, is this Constitutional?  Or not?  I'm undecided on that question right
> now, mostly because this is a rather new area of constitutional debate for
> me.  Comments?  Thoughts?
>
> (background noise: sounds of republicans going to the basement, unlocking the
> file cabinet that had been locked for twelve years, and pulling out their
> copies of the Constitution...:) ) [*]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:10:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: school daze

>        Clinton has been a supporter of public schools.  Sending his kid to a
>private one thus appears hypocritical.

brett', i support the public school system. my son is in the public system now.
i am also incredibly lucky to live in an area where the public schools are
considered to be tops in the nation. *but* if that were not the case, and i had
the $$, i would certainly send my son to a private school, while at the same
time try to work for bettering the public system.

put it another way. lets say your son has some special needs. lets say the
public school has an adequate special ed. program, but the private school has
a program that is more tailored to your son's needs. lets say you not only
support the public school system, but work for it. now fantasize that you have
enough money to send your son to the private school (even tho you work for the
public school .... i know its a stretch, but try to imagine it :)).

anyway, would you deny your son a better education just because you support
the public school system?

i dunno, i just don't a problem here.

-linda (i'm not in the mood to proof read this, so if i misspelled anything just
blame it on the public skoool system)

>Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:52:13 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Visit Colorado - #2

>Wrong.  Amendment 2 denied Coloradians the right to officially recognize
>sexual preference as a protected minority, if they ever decided to do so
>in the future.  It is a _prohibitive_ amendment - and on that basis alone
>is objectionable.

  No, that's not exactly true; or, that's not all it does.

  Fortunately for us, someone has had the good sense to
post the amendment to the list.  (More than once, though
I haven't been following closely.)  For all of you who
cannot figure out how to browse the archives, or for those
of you arguing without even knowing what is in the amendment,
I repost - Colorado's Amendment 2

-----------------

AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)
   "Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or
departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce
any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual,
lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or
entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
discrimination."

----------------

Now, if you've gotten this far in the post, I'll make a couple
of confessions.  This is better than a 1-900 number.  Well,
better in that it will be cheaper.  Confession 1: I'm surprised
you're here.  Most of you seem to prefer arguing from ignorance.
And, since the text has appeared already, and you didn't read
it the first time, I can't understand why you did this time.
Confession 2: I don't think the fact that it is prohibitive
is the objectionable part.  I don't think the part about
minority status or quotas is the objectionable part.  I think
the part where it prohibits claims of discrimination is the
objectionable part.  Okay, you can go back to your bickering
now.

                     -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:07:00 EST
From: Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: allowing floor votes by territory reps

DC pays federal taxes but is denied a vote in Congress, this is taxation
without representation which I believe was one of the grievences which led to
the American Revolution in the first place.

In any case, according to the Economist, the proposal is to count territorial
votes only if it doesn't change the outcome of the overall vote, thus it's just
a meaningless empty gesture and not worth all this bile.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU