HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:37:57 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt462150@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:

> In reverse order:
> The 14th amendment is the source of rights against states, true.
> But modern doctrine has it that the 14th taps into the Bill of
> Rights, making those rights into rights against states as well
> as rights against the federal government.

yes, but at least one right, equality, is found solely in the 14th
amendment and has no need to be incorporated into it.  So, 14th
amendment rights are at issue, not just those in the Bill of Rights.
Anyhow, it is the 14th amendment that is the source of the rights
anyhow via the due process clause (by modern doctrine) or the
privileges and immunities clause (maybe more to your liking).

> The reason the original law could be used against the KKK was
> that the Klan violated the second provision of the act (see below).

the law was for the KKK to begin with, so isn't the whole act
applicable?

> I don't agree.
> The right of abortion is a right against the government. The government
> may not restrict abortion in certain ways. It is not a right against
> other citizens.

ok, then explain why Scalia feels the right of travel is different
from the right of abortion.  I'm still confused about this.  You
rose the fact that Scalia was differentiating between positive and
negative rights, and since travel was protected (but was too weak here)
under his eyes but not abortion, I thought they were on opposite sides
of this split.

> Scalia says they didn't. He says that the rights which they supposedly
> had the purpose of denying were not, nor could they be, rights which
> the law protects. The rights that the law protects are rights
> against the government, not against organizations like OpRes.

this is dumb.  The Klan law was passed (KAT is also confused about
this too, for reason) against private organizations like the KKK (or
Operation Rescue), not the gov't.

> Still haven't got a look at that NR article.
>
> Jamie
>
and why not? :-)

   -Joe

P.S. The NYT has a humorous but true column today by a Graceful Dead
member called "Bill of Rights Lite" that is worth a look.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:40:11 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: broader question

>BTW - I agree about the guns; however, limiting gun ownership while we
>still live in the Wild West as far as gun laws and gun control
>sentiment are concerned would do litle good.

Actually, we don't, but you'd have to actually know something about
current gun law, gun law in the "Wild West" and the consequences of
same, knowledge that doesn't taint T's perceptions.  I recommend
McGrath's book on the subject.

>The supposedly "honest" NRA member easily (and quite _frequently_) picks
>up some cash strawman-selling to ex-cons.

BATF disagrees, as does every other study actually done on the
subject, but T doesn't care about such details.

T's right to lie is my right to point out that he's doing so and as
full of it as usual.

>We have to make guns inaccessible - period.

How?  We haven't made anything else inaccessible, and we've tried with
things that can't be made domestically with the mechanical sense God
gave an Afghan.  (Hint: I bailed out of high school metal shop and yet
I've made a semi-auto with K-mart tools.  Full-autos are easier.)

Right - we're basing policy on things we can't do.  Prohibition was
(and is) such a roaring success that T wants to extend it to other
areas.

>Those ugly relics of what should be our
>shameful _past_ ought to be discarded with the completely false notion
>that having a gun makes one "safe".

The victimization stats say that it does.  Unless you've got some way
to convince the strong and swift to refuse to exploit that advantage,
the rest of us will have to use tools.  (I wonder if T will trot out
the 39-1 study....)

As I remember, T claims to have some cop affiliates.  Wanna bet they
carry guns, with T's approval?

>especially those supposedly set for us 2000 years ago....pretty damn
>sure _he'd_ be a member of the NRA, eh?

The record isn't clear cut.  He did advocate carrying swords for
self-defense but he seems to have something against revenge.  Does
T confuse the two?

Of course, if T can't make his argument without resorting to a
mythical authority....

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:52:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      In search of the missing Kerry

Thought you might like to see how one of our ex-listers is occupying
some of her time . . .

Best,
Peter
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 4:30:02 EST
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
From: KSTE@vm.cc.purdue.edu ( Kerry Stephenson)
Subject: Sarcastic Warning
Keywords: smirk, true

My father works with radioactive isotopes, and from time to time he
is called upon to inspect the labs in which they are used.  He
reports that there is a sign in one of the labs (near a rather nasty-
looking contraption), which reads:

    WARNING:  DO NOT LOOK INTO LASER WITH REMAINING EYE.

I guess that's fair warning.  Late, maybe--but fair.

--
Selected by Maddi Hausmann.  MAIL your joke (jokes ONLY) to funny@clarinet.com
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible.  A Daemon will auto-reply.

Jokes ABOUT major current events should be sent to topical@clarinet.com
(ie. jokes which won't be funny if not given immediate attention.)
Anything that is not a joke submission goes to funny-request@clarinet.com
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Musical Presidents
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:25 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <MAILQUEUE-101.930121093350.256@suzy.law.ucla.edu>,     
    Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU> writes...
>2. It depends how you look at Richard Nixon...  Unlike Clinton, he
>HAD some clue about foreign policy.  Unlike Clinton, he had the media
>against him.  Unlike "Slick Willy" Clinton, he did not have a good
>public image.  I honestly believe that in ability alone, Richard
>Nixon was a great President that Bill Clinton can never compare to. . . .

Read Jerry Voorhis' _The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon_ (1972).  And
remember, this was written before Watergate.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:14:36 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>         The court can't rule on it if it never gets contested, and it can't
> simply x it out without finding a legal reason to do so.
>
>         Witness the War Powers Act, unconstitutional, but still around because
> no prez is going to risk their political future by challenging it.
>
> Brett'
>

Unfortunately, in most cases, the people who are affected by the
legislation will take the case to the High Court.  Especially on the
issue of gays in the military, it will undoubtedly be decided there
if Clinton has anything to say about -- so that the High Court can
prevent Congress from blocking the President's authorization to allow
gays into service.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:33:36 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >...
> >Here is my central point.  As long as public attitudes toward
> >homosexuality remain what they are today, those attitudes will
> >ensure a catastrophic failure of any attempt to formally introduce
> >homosexuals.  When homosexuals openly enter a unit, the existing
> >prejudices of the members of the unit will prevail, resulting in
> >violence or a wide range of reactions, all of which will prevent the
> >unit from performing its very specialized function.
>
>         I'd have to disagree.  The same objections were raised first about
> blacks, then about women.
>         There is no *logical* reason to exclude gays.  They are already there,
> which certainly proves that units will not implode because of any fault of the
> gays.
>         What does need to change, though, is the prejudices of those in the
> military against homosexuals.  They only problems I see are the ones caused by
> those unwilling to accept gays as equals, just like the problems with
> integration and women have come from those unwilling to accept them as equals.
>         If we are to accept a group of N+1 people rejecting some smaller group
> because "they aren't like us" then we're back to majority suppression of
> minorities.
>
> Brett'

   uh, brett, i agree with you, except for one point. what do we do
while the prejudices remain? do we accept a serious, perhaps very
serious, loss of morale and experienced personnel to accommodate a
few people who demand that the protector of this nation's freedom
radically change to suit *them*?

  this country has an all-volunteer military. if a gay person wishes
to join, there is a simple way to do so; lie. lying to enter the
service is a long and honorable tradition. women joined the union
army in disguise (maybe the confederate army, too) and lots of men
lied about their age to enlist, my own father among them.

  it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:38:04 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shortest Presidency
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> to remember reading in some article about political oddities a discussion
> about the possibility of someone being president for a few hours between
> the end of the term of one president and the inauguration of another,
> ie either the vice president or the speaker of the House technically
> being president for a very brief period.

As a matter of fact, in some "Amazing Facts" book I had years ago,
there was a question of "WHO SLEPT THROUGH HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY?"
(My first guess of Ronald Reagan was wrong, since he was still in
office at the time...)

    Supposedly, there was some guy that was President for an entire
Sunday...  Because one President's term ran out on Saturday, and the
new President didn't want to be sworn in until Monday.  This guy (I
think, Speaker of the House) was the President-for-a-Day (Doesn't
that sound like a bad MTV contest?), but was so tired from all of the
preparations beforehand that he slept through the entire day.  They
woke him up the next morning so that he could attend the inauguration
of the new President.  I guess *technically* Bill is the 43rd
President...

    Sorry I can't remember more about this, i.e. the name of one of
our Presidents...<smile>...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:05:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      new sc decision

-Tim,
     An executive order banning discussions of Supreme Court cases
BEFORE they are read would be lovely by me !
     I second the motion and move unanimous consent.

                          P.S.Ruckman,Jr.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
X-VMS-Cc: TFENWICK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:48:00 EST
From:         "Toby Fenwick, Middlebury College" <TFENWICK@MIDD.BITNET>
Subject:      Rush
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

Ninar-
        I have been watching this discussion with a combination of intrest and
disgust. My greatest problem with Rush is that he seeks to simplify the very
complicated problems that we all face: this he accoplishes by setting up an us
vs them mentality.... in a time when E pluribus Unum needs to be implemented
this sort of talk is more then slightly unhelpful. If the 10 million people who
you say listen to him for 3 hours a day are "true believers" of Rush, I wonder
how they feel about the "melting pot" and the inscription on the Statue of
Liberty concerning others who have come together to make America what she is
today.

Just a few thoughts...


Toby
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 16:33:05 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Fear and loathing of the USSR

Um, guys?

If you make it past the page after page after page of inauguration-
related fluff in this week's Newsweek, you come upon an interesting
2-pager about biological research in the Soviet Union.

Seems they've been working on creating a "superplague" since the
early 80s.

Just a bit:  "It was a vast operation, employing 25,000 people
             at 18 or more R & D facilities, six mothballed
             production plants and a major storage complex in
             Siberia.  The goal was to take known pathogens
             and alter their genetic structures to make them
             to make them resistant to Western drugs." (p. 40)

Um, is it me, or is this just a bit more important than the style
of Hillary's hat?

Just wondering,

--NINAR Kerry
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:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:16:00 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: SAFE T DANCE
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>   On a lighter note....
>
>   Did everyone enjoy watching Al and Tipper trying to dance to Graceland?
>At least we know that Al is hip.  Why didn't Al and Tipper mosh at the MTV
>Ball?
>
>Carl---+

        Penthouse has a cartoon of Bill and Al as the Blue's Brothers.  Almost
appropro 'cept Al doesn't have rythm.

Brett'
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"
X-VMS-Cc: JNET%"val-l@ucf1vm"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 19 Jan 1993 09:13:22 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Iraqi attack update and ...

Hi, everyone:
Val poses some questions I've been thinking about a lot recently:

 Will this set of activities arouse the Arab world in any
>way? Does this strengthen or weaken Hussein; what are your thoughts?

It seems that they're already having a negative effect on our relations
with other Arab countries -- I can't cite specifics, but Egypt and Jordan
don't seem very pleased.  Hussein seems to be becoming *more* popular,
somehow, as the "Arab nationalist" who stands up to "Western aggression."
I seem to recall predicting that this would happen -- alive or dead, in
power or out, he appears slated to increasing stature.  Weird.

>Where does it go from here, and what WILL Clinton do? I suggest we
>may now be caught in a web of "necessary belligerancy," wherein the
>violence must continue, or escalate, because I predict that Saddam
>Hussein will NOT be weakend by this business, not unless we kill him.
>Here, I still see a reluctance on the part of the "allies," and
>besides, Hussein has proved quite elusive in the past, and to this
>eye, still qwuite secure politically. He may be "crazy," but he has
>sucked us into a still "no-win" scenario, at least under current
>parameters. What say you? VMS

That's what it looks like to me.  I don't see any stopping point at which
the coalition (or the U.S./France/Brittain, or the U.N.) can say "we've won
and it's over now."  Based on his actions to date, I don't see Hussein
changing his course.  I don't see any reaction within Iraq against his
actions (of course, I also suspect that he's killed and/or terrorized all
who might do so).  In effect, he's "getting away with it", and it's the
citizens of Iraq who do the suffering.

Sorry if this isn't too coherent -- it's early, and I haven't finished my
coffee :)

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 22:52:58 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 23, 93 8:36 pm

>
> > All these numbers are neat, but:
> >
> > Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
> > in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
> > And climbing.
>
>     Pre-natal?  Pre-BIRTH human beings?  Please give me your definition of
> a human being.
>
>     Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu
>

As far as I'm concerned, a human being is someone who has developed to the
stage that they are capable of thinking and feeling the environment. Fetal
brain activity occures in the third trimester and seems to me to be a good
point to begin in describing what is and is not yet a human being. It's also
nice since less than 2% (if I'm correct) of all abortions occur past this point
in fetal development.

-Dan
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:54:47 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Just a quick point:

> I would consider the Gulf War a "Nintendo War," not for the technology,
> but for the coverage.

When you consider the way the war was fought (ie, tanks, helicopters
and jets w/ fire-control computers and missiles fired from ships 100+
miles away from the nearest bogey), there was a separation from reality
that is similar to that of playing nintendo. For years, the best way
to neutralize the emotional act of killing was recasting the victim
as a subhuman monster. Now, with computer games, we can subhumanize
them down to an electronic blip.

Once you get past the horror of it, it is pretty obvious.

> I'm still expecting the networks to come up with "America's Funniest
> War Videos."

I thought I saw "Desert Storm Bloopers and Practical Jokes" on sale
at County Market within a month of the cease-fire. Put out by CNN.

> --NINAR Kerry


Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
I belong the _____ generation, but
I can take it or leave it each time
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 17:29:36 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE:Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>It seems a tad inconsistent for you to suggest that Billy should not be blamed
>for something that happened during his watch.  While some of our fellow listers
>are more than ready and eager to suggest that he should get credit for the
>rising economy that he inherited from Bush.
>
>The Sears action, at least to me, is a more accurate measure of Billy's
>influence on the business environment.  What better way to prepare for an
>onslaught of higher taxes and deepening government interference, than to
>shed facilities and personnel?
>
>---Robert

        While I agree with your sentiment, I think Sears is simply continuing a
down-sizing policy started last year.

Brett
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Popmail-Charset: English
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:19:21 EDT
From:         Hank Griffeth <hgriffe@MAIL.GAC.PEACHNET.EDU>
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I SAW A MESSAGE FORWARDED FROM YOUR GROUP TO A CUG AT VALDOSTA STATE
COLLEGE.  I WAS WONDERING IF AND HOW I COULD SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR GROUP?

******************************************************************
Hank Griffeth  The Career Center  CPO Box 042  Phone: 912-453-4880
******************************************************************
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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:58:01 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> >they're damn ready to do so. As the recent ruling in favor of the pro choice
> >demonstrators points out, the President can set any agenda he wants, but the
> >courts can fight him all the way.
> >
> >-Dan
>
>         The prez has the edge.  The court can't introduce bills in congress.
>
> Brett'
>
Ah, maybe so, but the courts get the final say when these laws come up in cases
and as we can see, the court can always find a way to MAKE a law
unconstitutional if it doesn't coincide with the policies the court agrees
with. (see FDR and his fun with the courts at the beginning of his New Deal
legislation).

-Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:25:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: New Game, Anyone?

I don't even need to spend the time and energy (although both would be of
necessity minimal) replying wittily to Kerry's Kabinet.

In order to construct an opposing list of Conservative and/or Republican
(the and/or's for you Bush-Killed-The-Reagan-Legacy Types) Cabinet
Members who are bizarre, criminal, psychotic and/or felons, I simply
need to direct the reader to the cabinets of the past two Presidents of
The United States.

Happily, Reagan & Bush have already constructed such a list for us.


Thanks for the real easy straight line, Ker!  :)


As Letterman would say "You could see that one comin' up Sixth Avenue."


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU