HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:47:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Abortion in Washington DC

In article <tfilt199097@drew.edu>, Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 1992 15:16:10 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
>> >From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

> And also, remember that Supreme Court decisions are based also on the
> ability of the attorneys arguing the case.  If an attorney forgets
> about Clause X of Article Y of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
> may not consider it in their decision.
>
Jamie says this is not revelant, I say it is wrong.  One well known
case is Mapp v. Ohio which said that "exclusionary rule" applies to
the states.  The defense didn't raise this point, it was a pornography
case [oh, anyone read about the entrapment cape in NYT Tuesday of
trying to arrest a 50ish farmer who supports his father for child
porn?], but the Supreme Court has a right to look at all the issues
the case brings up.  This was important in a case Travis had some kind
words for, Dred Scott v. Sandford, for Taney and company decided lots
more than the attorneys argued.

    And Travis should at least read the 14th amendment if not other
places that limit state authority before going on and on about how it
perverts state rights.  Re abortion, the 14th amendment via the 5th
section gives the Congress a right to pass legislation that enforces
the "provisions of the article" like "liberty" (privacy or religion,
which is what abortion is all about ditto homosexuality) or equality
(ditto).  The court has said that the due process clause of the 5th
applies equality to an extent to the federal gov't too.

                -JOE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: ncovey@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (neil covey)
Subject: predictions for Tuesday
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 14:22:25 GMT

I don't remember a prediction contest for Connecticut, Vermont, Alaska,
or Puerto Rico, so I suppose I am still defending champ.  Therefore, I
have decided to risk making a total fool of myself by predicting results
of the New York, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (the beauty contest)
democratic primaries.  All I will say about the Republicans is that
Georgie boy will win, but that Duke, Buchanan and Uncommitted will gang
up on him for about %30 of the vote in NY, and Wisconsin.

So here goes:
Kansas:
Clinton     %65
Uncommitted %15
Tsongas     %12  
Brown       %5
Other       %3

Minnesota:
Clinton     %44
Brown       %42
Tsongas and Uncommitted the rest

Wisconsin   
Brown       %43
Clinton     %42
Tsongas and Uncommitted the rest

New York
Clinton     %45
Brown       %35
Tsongas     %12
Uncommitted %6
Other       %2

Comment: Clinton could still win Wisconsin; Brown could still Minnesota.
In Minnesota the delegates are chosen in caucuses.  In Wisconsin, even
if he loses the popular vote, Clinton will probably snag more delegates
due to the %15 rule--just as he did in Connecticut by the way.  I
figure a 6-12 point win for Clinton in NY, and a 10-18 percent finish
for Tsongas in NY.  If Clinton wins, Tsongas stays out.  Tsongas's
getting out when he did was probably the worst thing that could have
happened from Clinton's perspective.  He's weakest in the Northeast and
Tsongas is strongest there.  The dismay over Tsongas's dropping out and
the continuing "character" issues (I myself think Clinton is everything
Jimmy Carter said he was in his endorsement of Clinton last week)
combined with New York press "attention" and an anti-hick anti-Southern
sentiment in New Yorkers (This sentiment is not so much a prejudice as a
reflection of the fact that the urban Northeast and the South are two
incredibly different worlds) gave Clinton the worst of all possible
atmospheres to compete in.

The atmosphere is such that any prognostication made on Monday can look
very foolish on Tuesday night.  Go Dodgers! Let's hear it for opening
day.     

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:01:23 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hunting

>> Nope.  Hunting is enjoyable, and killing is part of hunting, but
>> killing for pleasure is not the purpose of hunting.
>
>Now, in the previous post, Andy was quick to say that
>gun manufacturers don't pick targets for gun owners.
>But now he claims *he* has the right and the power to
>assign or withhold motives to hunters.

I've bought guns; the gun manufacturer didn't determine the
use that I bought them for.

I've had considerable experience with hunters; I'm merely reporting
their views.  Unless KAT can read minds ....

>And if someone takes a gun, goes in the woods, kills animals
>for the pleasure of killing, you wouldn't call that act hunting
>and that person a hunter?  Well most of people do (I think).

I don't know what I'd call such a person.  (Hunters appear to have
names for them, and they're not complimentary and hunters don't think
those people are "hunters".  Some argue that the pleasure-killers come
from "modern" social structures and weren't socialized into hunting.)
However, among folk who kill animals (apart from market killers who
work for the rest of us) they're a small minority so KAT's implied
"therefore most/all people who kill animals ..." doesn't work.

KAT claims that he knows why people kill animals, but he can't
distinguish people who kill for different reasons; all he can do is
assert that he knows because he wrongly believes that no other reason
exists.  That's not much of a qualification.

-andy
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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:56:00 EDT
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Objectivity

In article <tfilt196432@drew.edu>, Cry and the World laughs at You <T9AA@SDSUMUS
   .BITNET> writes:
> JOE, Jay says something is Liberal or Conservative, and I really don't
> see whether I should agree to something just because it's Liberal or
> Conservative.

I'm very glad that you feel this way; I'm damn tired of people looking
at everything like all is black and white.  I tried not to do this,
but show things are complicated on the segregation issue and I was
attacked. I read somewhere that the '70s brought major disillusionment
with the government, and appearance/ face value became more important
than the complicated reality.  We can't fix up the messes in the world
unless we change this.

>
> Jay would probably call me liberal. He already knows I'm too conspiracy
> minded for my own good B). But, I believe in open gun ownership combined
> with universal gun education. I realize that, due to the near total
> destruction of natural predators to deer, elk, and other animals, they
> either spread so far significant numbers become roadkill or starve, so
> as effective managers of our wilderness, we must allow hunting. I feel
> less government is better than no government. These are all conservative
> positions coming out of someone who'd be a liberal democrat poster child
> if you saw me walking down the street.
>
I'm sorry you included this example; I'm for gun ownership (no
limitations would be going too far though imho), but this need for
hunter argument kind of seems dumb to me.  Man threatens the
environment of animals so he is kind if he kills them; stop this
pseudo-humanistic facade and admit hunters kill for the sport.  After
all, for those who feel animals are somewhere on par with us
(self-interest putting man above other animals), the argument could be that
since people are starving in Africa we should kill them. Nonetheless,
I agree with the general point of your post.

               -JOE

P.S. Thanks to the debate last year on the 2nd amendment, my thoughts
on the right to bear arms has somewhat changed.  An absolutist view
however still seems excessive to me.
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:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 08:40:16 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      legitimizing homosexuality

Jay:
I'm trying to save myself the hassle of extracting the parts of your recent
post I'd like to respond to.  I apologize in advance if I misrepresent your
views.

The point I'd like some clarification on concerns your belief that
legalizing homosexual partnerships is wrong.  I understand you to believe
that your religious views should not be embodied in law.  Thus, you would
not support legislation to criminalize homosexuality per se.  But you do
not believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights (various
benefits conferred by the legal institution of marriage) that heterosexual
couples have.

As part of your explanation, you ask that we mentally substitute "adultery"
for "homosexuality" and draw conclusions from that.  Well, in a quasi-legal
sense, adultery is a behavior that violates a kind of contract between two
people (the agreement to be sexually faithful).  Seems to me that
homosexuals desiring the legal (and other) benefits of a state-sanctioned
marriage are trying to make the kind of contract that adultery violates.
So adultery is not equivalent to homosexuality in that sense.

You also argue that homosexual couples can achieve the same legal benefits
as heterosexual couples by drawing up a legal agreement (like prenuptials,
I assume, or the contract my SO and I are working on prior to buying our
house).  Now, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that such an agreement can
only cover a portion of the benefits conveyed by marriage.  The thing that
comes to my mind immediately is insurance -- a spouse can get coverage, but
I don't think a non-married domestic partner can.  Maybe I'm wrong.

But this brings me to the real question (bet you were wondering when I'd
get around to it :)).  Why should homosexual couples have to arrange their
lives differently from heterosexual couples?  What justification, other
than religion/morality, can be used to deny the same rights to homosexuals
as to heterosexuals?  You see, I don't understand your distinction between
outlawing homosexuality (using religion to establish a law) and refusing to
"legitimize" homosexuality by denying legal rights to those individuals.
How is the latter any less based on religious views than the former?

Thanks
Kerry
From: edmunds@vaxr.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Union Busting at its best
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:44:47 GMT
Organization: LLNL_LIS


  >Dave Edmunds writes --
    >  As one might expect, the relationship between union and management was
  >completely adversarial.  Both sides acted like jerks.  The company
  >hammered away about productivity, the union about job security and work
  >conditions.  They didn't hear each other very well -- or weren't listening.
  
  | G. Racz writes --
  |       Thanks for the first-hand account of the Cat/union problem.
  |    It seems that this is the problem--nobody ever wants to think about
  |    anyone but themselves.  I objected to the fact that Jay wuggested that
  |    1) the corporate leadership is a good thing, automatically and
  |    2) the union leadership is a bad thing
  |    It seems here from what you said about the whole situation that the
  |    leadership on both sides was at fault.
  
  
  Yes, both sides were at fault, but, in my view, not equally.  The union
leadership is, or was, *extremely* concerned with self-preservation and
power.  They intentionally would mislead their membership about company
proposals, about the cost to the company of various work procedures, about
the salaries made by other unions -- you name it.  Unions, unlike the
companies they organize, had no legal obligation to tell their constituency
the truth.
  Caterpillar was hurt badly in the early 80's when the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan and Carter cancelled all business with them, including a
multi-billion dollar deal with Cat.  This, combined with the general
economic times, started Cat on its downhill slide.  It was at one time
one of the 25 largest corporations in the US, and the single largest user
of steel.  The company needed some concessions, the union told them to
think again, and a tremendous number of people were laid off, and I'm sure
never got called back.  The union leadership consciously chose to keep
fewer people working, but at a higher rate, than they might have.
  Cat made its biggest mistakes in the 70's, when in their pursuit of
profits they agreed to many of the demands of the union.  Having agreed
to a benefit, it's very difficult to negotiate it away again.  

  Having said that, I certainly agree that one shouldn't make blanket 
statements about management being good and unions being bad.  But I think
in this case, it may be closer to the truth.

-- Dave Edmunds
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 11:20:38 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

My congratulations and thanks to brni.


   Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:04:43 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Pro-Choice Republicans
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET, emly@UCHIMVS1.BITNET,
              gaw3@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, bfb1@UCHIMVS1.BITNET, dgh@edsi.plexus.com

The unknown republican who will run against Brawn for Dixon's senate seat
made an important announcement today.

He is pro-choice.

This puts him in line with a majority of the republican party.  The younger
cadre of us are generally pro-choice.

If only electing a pro-choice person didn't mean getting aliberal.

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
From: TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET (Travis Kidd)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:49:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:39:03 CDT Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU> sai
d:
> History of the 2nd Amm - short version.
>
> Like most else, the 2nd Ammendment was a compromise, where two phrases were
> combined.  If you drop the intorductory clause, the ammendment becomes clear.
>
You can't drop the introductory clause without a constitutional
amendment.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:33:01 EDT
From:         Phillip J VanFossen <pvanfoss@MAGNUS.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Steven Sultan" at Apr 14, 92 4:28 pm

                   The issue was simple - save one
> narrow species of salmon or keep the agricultural power of CA, which has many
> benefits, including the feeding of the starving in other countries.  It is a
> clear case of man v fish.  Which do you choose?
>
> Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
> University of Chicago
>
> "Entitlement does not lead to Empowerment."   Jay Steven Sultan
I'm not convinced that the issue is either 'simple' or, more importantly, can
be rendered as 'man v fish'  The analysis you so cavalierly and casually toss
off as 'simple' is quite complex and deserving of, it would seem, just a tad
more discussion.  As for the invocation of CA feeding the world's starving it
is suffice to say that if this is the case (and I doubt that CA's ag output
goes more often to Kampuchea that to the corner grocery in main street USA),
then this is an economic problem that must be addressed.  That is, if the
world's LDC's are dependent on the costly and extremely water intensive crops
of CA, then LDC's are getting a bad bargain!  Certainly other countries have a
comparative advantage in the foodstuffs LDC's would be most interested in?  It
is doubtful, in fact, that LDC's are importaing oranges and lettuce from CA.
Methinks the reference to starving people a ploy to direct attention from a
more pointed, and complex, discourse.

pvf
>
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:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:18:00 EDT
From:         GU091GXR@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: 1992 Libertarian Platform part 4

    Please send along a summary of the Libertarian Party Platform.
    Preferably under 500 lines (evven that is stretching it).  The
    complete platform takes up too much space on my account and too
    much time to read, but I'm interested in discussing the platform.
    Thanks.

              --G. Racz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:05:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: More sin stuff

> According to my dictionary, a venial sin is by definition
> one which merits only temporal punishment. But I'm told
> that isn't really correct, since all sins must be
> punished in the hereafter. Justice, you know.

The line we got (back in the fifties) was that mortal sins were
forever, if you didn't hit the confessional in time.  Venial sins
could be worked out over time.  Concurrently or consecutively, they
didn't say.

> >The distinction, he explained, was that a mortal sin was one committed
> >knowingly and freely.  Guess homosexuality might qualify.
>
> Agrees with my source, who says that you must know that the
> sin is a sin, and commit it intentionally, for it to be a mortal sin.
> But there are probably other necessary conditions, too.

Are you familiar with the George Carlin routine?  Ya gotta wanna to
make it a mortal sin.  In fact, the wanna is enough--you don't have
to do the sin because wanting to do it is enough to land you in the
hot place.  Lets out manslaughter, but definitely includes lust (and
avarice, too).

> Wouldn't homosexuality involve lust? So it would have to be
> a deadly sin, at least. But maybe the mortal sin would be
> sodomy. The only real way to be sure is to run some tests.
> Who wants to volunteer?

For the lust alone, I nominate Jimmy Carter (hey, what an old joke).

> >>Anger, avarice, envy, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth.
>
> >Let's see, are those the cardinal sins?
>
> There are cardinal virtues, but I'm not aware of cardinal sins.

You're right, they are "deadly" sins.

> It was pointed out to me that the proper contrast with "virtue"
> is "vice," and not "sin." A nice point, especially since
> the so-called deadly sins are really more in the "vice"
> category. They are states of character or states of mind,
> not actions.
>
> It's really appalling that the Saved are not helping us
> with this stuff, by the way.

They're probably too busy calculating how much time we've racked up
by not taking all this seriously enough.

> From:         holzman@FNALO.FNAL.GOV
>
> >Is that the universal Christian view, or only the Catholic view?
>
> I doubt that there is any "universal Christian view" about
> much of anything. (Well, maybe that Christ was the son of
> God. But do Unitarians believe that?) But anyway, I think
> the mortal/venial distinction is specifically Catholic.

I think that's right.  As is purgatory and limbo and other good
stuff (though I think limbo has been discontinued).

Best,
Peter

> Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:23:44 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>>As much as I enjoy reading fantasy situations invented by people who
>>don't know what they're talking about, they are fantasies and don't
>>tell us anything about actual experience.  The reason I've cited
>>Kleck's Point Blank is that it includes the relevant stats and
>>discussion.
>
>    Well, I didn't think that you would assume that I had made all that
>  up.  Actually, the thoughts came from a speaker (whose name eludes me
>  at the moment) who is an expert on self-defense advice for the average
>  person and appeared on a PBS special on the subject of defense in
>  March.

Lots of people consider themselves experts, but their advice exposes
them.  (BTW - Cops are quite average when it comes to gun handling.)

A self-defense "expert" who says that guns aren't useful for
self-defense is lying, ignorant, or stupid.  The victimization stats
show that folks who use guns for self-defense are significantly less
likely to be killed or injured than people who submit.  Submission is
associated with less injury/death than using other weapons*, but that's
not relevant to the "are guns useful?" question.

Do we want to go into this further?  (Yes, with-gun self-defense is
useful against with-gun attacks.)

-andy

* - If you lump guns in with other weapons, you find that "all
weapons" is associated with more injury/death than submission, but....
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:55:12 CDT
From:         Jay Steven Sultan <sult@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Steriotyping Steriotypes

In academia, there is another word for steriotypes - genaralizations.

Which is what 90% of academic pursuit is about.  Most diciplins seek to
understand the world by finding generalizations about it.

I guess it makes you feel better to observe the obivous, that
steriotypes/generalizations are often inaccurate.  But, they serve an
essential, important purpose.

You would think college people would understand that...

Jay Steven Sultan                 Internet: sult@quads.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

"Type faster."    - Issac Asimov (?-1992), when asked what he would do if he
                    knew he only had six months to live.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:31:38 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Moving the Capitol

>From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

Just to show that I am an equal opportunity nitpicker:
moving the Capitol would be awfully expensive. We might
instead move the capital.

>My Proposal:
>
>Move our nation's captital every four years.  Pick cities that could
>really use the overhaul, perhaps make downtown Detroit the first,
>with St. Louis perhaps the next site.

I'm just afraid that Providence is next on the list! We could
use all that money, sure, but what we DON'T need is more
politicians hanging around in bars.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:49:28 CST
From:         Let It Rain <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

Joe, or is it JOE, I feel right now, as we have nearly destroyed
all of the natural predators of North America, it is left to us
to be temporary preditors while we work on reestablishing wolves
and other predators in natural areas.

I'm not saying it's the right decision, but it works for now.

Dave