HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 11:24:38 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!

>I'm not sure what Elbridge Gerry had in mind, besides creatively reappor-
>tioning Congressional districts.  The problem with the Constitution is
>that it's like Scripture. It's subject to interpretation and we can expect
>those interpretations to change with the times.

However, it isn't subject to arbitary interpretatation.  Or rather, if
it is, it is meaningless.  In some settings, that may not mean much
(and tenure isn't "much"), but in others, it has extreme consequences.

>After all is said and done,
>your interpretation of the provisions touching upon guns and the militia is
>not irrational or "wrong"--you make a lot of sense--but I simply disagree.
>If there were at least 5 justices who interpreted the relevant amendments as
>I do, we'd have a judicial precedent for profound gun control.

I note that the anti-flag burners went for an amendment; they lost.
Why is it that "good" people find it so difficult to act in good
faith?  (See how things keep coming back to values?)

If you insist on amendment by interpretation, you'll get war because
you'll have lost legitimacy.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:40:00 EST
From:         I am the sacrificial butter <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Russia and Bosnia, comments, (#699)

vms,

my family is from yugoslavia.  my father was of a serbian family
living in croatia, my mother of a croatian family living in serbia.
the hatred between the serbs and the croats has a long history, and
the only reason that the serbians have committed more attocities than
the croats is that they have the power to do so.

this is true for just about any yugoslav nationality.  i learned at an
early age that the only time yugoslavs of different nationalities
become friendly is when they are in the united states.

i am not endorsing any of the violence that has taken place, especially
not of "war crime" stature.  i am simply pointing out that were
the positions reversed, the situation would still be the same.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:41:43 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re:

From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU

> On a different note, since you seem to know something about this:
> according to international law (ha!), could the US invade Libya to remove
> the two guys we want to try for the Pan Am bombing, using the same
> rationale we did to invade Panama?  Honest question!

Or, could India send undercover agents to US to try to
apprehend the CEO of Union Carbide?

> Kerry

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:55:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

I am a pro-life Clinton supporter (actually Buchanan, but he ain't
gonna win).  I am disturbed by something he said recently (I don't
know exactly where or when).  He said that if elected he would work
for a federal freedom of choice act and that he would put on the court
justices who believed in the right to privacy including a woman's right
to choose an abortion.            (my word)---|
                                              V
1) The freedom of choice act would be federalo-imperialistic, hence
   unconstitutional.
2) A president should pick justices based on their devotion to the con-
   stitution and their legal experience, not on their personal opinions/
   interpretations/wishes about what the constitution means.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:49:08 EDT
From:         "Susan J. Luckel" <BI705001@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: data please

RE: fetal tissue research

The woman who said she would gladly get pregnant to donate the fetal tissue for
research for her mother who has parkinsons may be well-intentioned, but...
The fact is that if fetal tissue were useable (that is, not proscribed) there
is already plenty that would be available -- probably more than could ever be
used up. What's more, a researcher friend of mine tells me that you can grow it
once you get some to start with (like skin cells). So there would be no need
for anyone to get pregnant just to donate a dead fetus for research.
What's more, Parkinson's is not the only disease where this research shows
promise. I have heard that it is also promising in Alzheimer's and other dis-
eases where the tissues degenerate.

Even some Right-to-Life, anti-abortion congressmen and senators support the
lifting of the ban on fetal tissue research. It is a stupid rule, with no
moral basis. Just another case of the President losing his way ...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
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, 13 Apr 1992 08:41:46 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

JOE asks:
>anyone have any opinions on this new campaign finance bill proposed
>that the president rejected?
>
I'm still waiting to find out exactly what the content of the bill is - any
help?

On a similar subject: I understand Bush is going to enact some kind of rule
forbidding unions from supporting political candidates with money received
from non-union members (this to enforce a SC ruling).  Sounds like a good
idea.  Now, can I keep Bush from subsidizing his campaign with my tax
dollars?  After all, I understand the Bush campaign is charged far less
than the actual cost of using all those jets . . .

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:02:20 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Victory for America, Loss for UAW

> ..................................        the last statistic i heard
> was that the top one percent of earners in this country pay 20% of
> taxes. the mddle class? they already (imho) pay too much. the poor?
> they don't have enough money to get by as is.

This one piece of statistics does not mean much.  The reason is that
two factors could have caused this.

          1.  The top 1% pays 20% of taxes because they make even
              a higher % of the income.

          2.  The top 1% pays 20% of taxes because their tax rate
              is unjustifiably high.

And interestingly enough the above two factors are almost
diametrically opposed to each other.

If you want to make a meaningful conclusion from the above piece of
info you must also find the % of income made by the top 1%.

If that % is more than 20%, then it means that the rich have been
paying taxes at a higher rate (then the real question becomes
how much higher, since most people believe that the higher
the income the higher the rate).  But if that % is less than
20%, then it means that the rich have been paying a lower tax
rate than the rest of the society.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:45:27 EDT
From:         J Sullivan <JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Tories ->only 42% of UK vote

How did the Scots Nationalists do in the election, and will they move to
secede?  Relatedly, what has Plaid Cymru been doing lately?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:54:15 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      new math

Could someone explain to Jay that there is a hell of a difference
between paying 43.5% tax on 1K versus paying 43.5% on 75k?

1st scenario - $435
2nd scenario - $32250

I believe Jay stated "my taxes totaled 43.5% of my income".
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:19:33 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re : uzi on the street

Hold it! I own a rifle, and if it is only used to kill things,
using G.'s definition, I am a killer or a potential killer.

I have never used it to harm more than grass (and a pair of glasses,
once), and I am offended by that characterization.

If we (the POLITICS Gun Lobby) concede that the one true purpose
of a gun is to kill, the next logical step is debating how we
remove guns from the hands of the people.

I am not and would not be willing to make that concession.

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:46:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: who's afraid of the big bad union?

> GHWB has decided that four years is long enough to contemplate the meaning
> of a 1988 decision which forbids unions to use money from non-members to
> support political causes. This raises several interesting questions:
>
> 1. Why is this an isssue in a presidential election year but was not an
> issue in previous years when it could have been used to influence the
> congressional make-up? (That is , why is george using the issue to help
> himself instead of his party).

Could it be he feels nervous, for the first time in a while?  People
with jobs are beginning to feel that they've taken quite enough hits,
thank you very much.  I am seeing an increase in grass-roots agitation
and organization, which I think comes directly from the squeeze which
has been put on working people, especially the lower-paid ones.

Also, Bush isn't really out for the party.  He's out for himself.
Witness his dramatic 1980 philosophical conversion.

> 2. Since these people are benefitting from the activities of the union
> as far as wages and benefits can the union refuse to represent these
> persons in their meetings with management? Contrary to what you have
> heard in the sound bytes, the unions are not stealing this money.

Quite true, but labor law requires the unions to represent everybody
in a bargaining unit, even if they are allowed to refrain from joining
the union.  Hence the fees.

I find the news that Cat and the UAW are resuming talks to be
heartening.  Maybe something will come of it now.  It's too bad that the
company tried to break the union by hiring replacements, but good to see
that the overwhelming majority (over 90 percent, on the reports I heard)
of the workers did not desert the strike.  At times like this, hanging
together is the only way to avoid hanging separately.  Since the company
obviously realized the danger in starting over with a new, untrained
labor force AND taking all of the bad publicity, it sensibly decided to
talk again.  Hopefully this will lead to an agreement soon.  I also hope
that this sends a signal to American businesses that their workers won't
cave in to strong-arm tactics, and shouldn't be expected to.  I guess
the members felt that their union had some value after all.

So much for union-busting.  Until the next bastard tries it.

Best,
Peter

BTW, I'm away for a few days--have fun and don't eat too much candy.
See you Tuesday.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:26:16 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      spelling

Hi.  Just a quick question for Jay:  you're kidding about blaming your lack
of spelling skills on your (presumably K-12) schooling, right?

Kerry
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, 10 Apr 1992 12:37:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Conviction of a thug

>But, even with the administration's victory, I will clearly state my opinion
>that it doesn't matter.  We did not do JUST CAUSE to get one drug pusher.  It
>was about restoring democracy and installing a legtimate government, about
>abiding by our treaty requirements, and about protecting the lives of US
>citizens (recall, the trigger was the abduction, torture, and sexual assualt
>of the PDF on US citizens).

     Wasn't there heavy CIA involvement in propping Noriega up?  I
   thought there were reports of money laundering etc. through the CIA.
   Also, we were his main military supplier, weren't we?  It had something
   to do with Nicaragua, if I'm not mistaken.  The old philosophy that
   if a leader of a country is against the same people the US is, he
   must be good.  Well, look at all the trouble that's gotten us into--
   Noriega, Hussein, who's next.


>Anyway, the real winners are the Panaminian people who not only have their
>democracy back, they now need not worry about him returning.

   It's too bad the US was responsible for having him in power in the first
  place.
              --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 08:57:12 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uzi on the street

>First of all, not everyone gets a car.  There are age, vision, and rules
>restrictions on obtaining a driver's license.

However, no one advocates giving police arbitrary discretion over who
may own a car; the supposedly moderate Brady bill does just that.
Moreover, the license restrictions apply only to use on certain public
property; drunks and the blind can drive all they want on private
property with the owners' permission....

BTW - It's fairly easy to see that the listed criteria have something
to do with the problems associated with car use, which are largely
associated with unintentional action.  The analogy fails, among other
reasons, because the problems associated with guns are INTENTIONAL
actions by some.

>Secondly, few people in cars have been able to kill from the convenience of a
>sixth story window or a bell tower.

And, no one with a gun has ever managed to smash 20-30 people.  (The
mass murder records are held by people using mass methods; cars are
closer to that than guns, but fire is the most effective.)

>Thirdly, we do require that car ownership be registered with state
>government.  If you are suggesting that should apply equally to gun
>ownership, I might agree with you.

Gun registration has been tried in both the US and other countries; it
has never had an effect on crime.  (It can't, for somewhat obvious
reasons.  Think about the circumstances necessary for it to matter.)
BTW - One can accurately say that the US currently has nation-wide gun
registration.  (If you can't describe it ....)

That's an instance of a more general result; gun control doesn't
affect crime.  (Long time readers of POLITICS-L are probably wishing
for kill files now.)

There are several interesting differences between guns and cars.  Take
registration, for example.  Car registration is a taxation measure.
It might have some effect on crime, because cars are large enough that
their plates can be read by others and usually acquired through legal
means, but we regard that as a happy circumstance and none of those
factors are present with the criminal uses of guns.

Bait: If you're not familiar with the basic literature in the
field....  I highly recommend Kleck's "Point Blank: Guns and Violence
in America".  If you can't get Kleck, or you want to fill in some of
the obvious holes, Wright, Rossi, and Daly's "Under the Gun" and
Wright and Rossi's "Armed and Dangerous" are good.  (From there, chase
references and read Kates.)  Don't make arguments using the technical
properties of guns unless you know at least as much as can be found in
Newton's "Armed and Dangerous: A Writer's Guide to Weapons."  Don't
make claims about current gun law unless you know it; the BATF "Red
Book" is a good start.

-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-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @ACTIVIST.DIS
X-VMS-Cc: IN%"peacenet@igc.org", IN%"afrinet@igc.org"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:45:00 EST
From:         BRUTUS@PITTVMS.BITNET
Subject:      AFCOL Research Request 2
Comments: To: MATHRCK@UMCVMB.BITNET, NAGLER@OLSEN.UUCP, CATHYF@EARLHAM.BITNET,
              JSD@CRUNCH.ENG.SUN.COM, EEFACKD@PRISM.GATECH.EDU,
              ST0O+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU, PMC@NCSUVM.BITNET,
              CDP!CHRISTIC@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU, UAHMLD01@UAHVAX1.BITNET,
              PEACE@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU, LKK@ZURICH.AI.MIT.EDU,
              CDP!CSIME@LABREA.STANFORD.EDU, EIVERSON@NMSU.EDU,
              LAKOFF@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU, ACTIV-L@UMCVMB.BITNET,
              RADICAL@UAHVAX1.BITNET, BALT-L@UBVM.BITNET,
              JPRICE@JOVE.CS.PDX.EDU, PETER.SHELL@ML.RI.CMU.EDU,
              JOHN.W.LAMPERTI@MAC.DARTMOUTH.EDU, PEPINSKY@IUBACS.BITNET,
              HARELB@CABOT.DARTMOUTH.EDU, CARLIP@UCDHEP.BITNET,
              AVATAR@PNET51.ORB.MN.ORG, PENN@MITLNS.BITNET,
              I2010506@DBSTU1.BITNET, LOIS@UCF1VM.BITNET,
              POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET, CUR@CALTECH.BITNET,
              EEFA01Z@CALSTATE.BITNET, ALTMANN@NATASHA.MACH.CS.CMU.EDU,
              GSC@GNOSYS.SVLE.MA.US, KLASSNER@CS.UMASS.EDU,
              SLEE@THEOCHEM.WATERLOO.EDU, DM@THINK.COM,
              SANTARELLI@CRL.DEC.COM, GERTV@OOC.UVA.NL, PDB@CORNELLF.BITNET,
              8714505@MCMASTER.BITNET, AY08+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU,
              JUSTNEWS@NESSIE.CC.WWU.EDU, AR.MSG@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU,
              LKOCH@unix.cis.pitt.edu, SYNCHRO@UCSCF.UCSC.EDU,
              NMOUAWAD@WATMATH.WATERLOO.EDU, NIGEL.GODDARD@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Comments: cc: peacenet@igc.ORG, afrinet@igc.ORG

 Information requested on:
 A Poem by Ernesto Cardenal (Spanish or
 English translation) about a poet whose
 poem was rejected and who vows revenge.
 A Key line states: "Years later,
 Six Million died."

 Please send information to AFCOL.
 Greetings, AFRINET.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <NY911179@PACEVM>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 10:08:13 EDT
From:         Mark Susskind <NY911179@PACEVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Speech, Arms, and Ben Franklin

Didn't Benjamin Franklin say something like, "Of course the right of speech
should be regulated, but who is to regulate it?"

Likewise, I say, "Of course the right to bear arms should be regulated, but who
is to regulate it?"

Guns and similar weapons are not designed specifically to kill people, even
though it is well within their ability to do so, if they are used improperly or
carelessly.  Just like automobiles are not designed specifically to kill
people, even though it is well within their ability to do so, if they are used
improperly or carelessly.

Laissez Fairely Yours, =)
Mark R. Susskind <NY911179 @ PACEVM.BITNET>

238 Dogwood Road  Clerk-Typist                   Computer Science
Valley Stream     USDA, FSIS, M&P, RP, CP        Pace University
Long Island       26 Federal Plaza, Room 36-128  Isle of New York
New York, USA     Isle of New York               New York, USA  10038
11580-4036        New York, USA  10278-0043
+ 1-516-561-1128  + 1-212-264-4674,5,6

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
 If I am only for myself, what am I?
 And if not now, when?" -- Hillel

"The impropriety is no illusion." -- Mark R. Susskind
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:38:47 CST
From:         "Cry and the World laughs at You" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Brown's records

Some newsmag or other has a bit where they said they wanted to
donate more, and the phone person was more than willing to tell
them ways of circling the $100 mark.

Dave
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:11:00 EST
From:         "Give me Sodomy or give me death!" <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      response to jay's post : the military

on the admittance of homosexuals in the military.

jay cites 2 rationales for disallowing homosexuals in active duty:

>1) homosexuals would be the target of special violence and 2) their
>presence will reduce the functionality of the unit.

i say that neither of these is the fault nor should be the problem
of the openly gay people who wish to sign their lives away (note that
there are plenty of gay and lesbian military folk who are not/ can not
be open about their sexuality).  there is violence against gays who are
discovered, and this is tolerated by the powers that be, and the fact
that homosexuals are legally excluded from duty simply gives the others
the impression that such violence is ok.

the commanders of the unit should be held responsible for any such activity
that s/he does not take active steps to avoid.

the argument that jay gives was used against efforts to racially integrate
military units, and is, i think, just as valid.
just as soldiers are taught that when they are in the military, they are
not a group of blacks, whites, hispanics, jews, etc, but a fighting unit,
that they are soldiers first and formost, etc, they must be taught that
this extends to the gay/straight distinction as well.

jay follows this by comparing the physical abilities of homosexuals and
the physically disabled, but i think that the error here is obvious.

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