HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:57:37 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: my life with the thrill kill cult

Let's not forget the invasion of Russia by the Tuetonic Knights or the
conquest of Ireland which some compare with Genocide. The Inquisistion(s)
was (were) a real winner too.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:30:39 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Weapons designed for human destruction?

>I do think that we should have the right to have weapons of defense and
>sport(hunting), but I think that it is perfectly reasonable to see
>firearms banned from non-military-types if they are primarily weapons
>designed for human destruction.

Hmm.  What distinguishes "weapons designed for human destruction" from
other lethal-force weapons useful for self-defense or hunting?* Are
there no other acceptable uses and why are these uses acceptable?  (I
know people who do military recreations.  Others are involved in
community defenses against communal attacks that the authorities are
uninterested in.)  Why is hunting the only appropriate sport?  How
about target shooting?  Does it depend on whether we're talking about
target shooting where the goal is to see how well a human can simulate
a post or are other types of target shooting acceptable?

It might be good to start with "What does `designed for human
destruction' mean and how does it come into the discussion?"

Has such a distinction been legislated in the US?  If so, when and
what was the effect?  Does the effect of these sorts of restrictions
matter?

What if weapon characteristics don't limit uses?  (I don't know how a
gun could be useful for armed robbery, but not self-defense or could
be useful for self-defense but not armed robbery, but I'm willing to
learn.  Similarly, I don't know how a gun can be useful for bird
shooting, but not for clay pidgeon sports.  And, if it is good for
those things, then it should work on a crowded schoolyard.)

For some types of distinctions, I'm going to point out where shotguns
fit in.  I'll point out the absurdity of appearance or "derived from"
distinctions.  If certain distinctions are proposed, I'll point out
that they have been legislated and the effects.  If a proposed
distinction doesn't actually exist, I'll point out too.

-andy is willing and able to discuss particulars of different kinds
      of distinctions between weapons because he's done some of the
      relevant research

* - Remember, the trend in modern military small arms is towards LESS
lethal weapons.  There are strategic advantages to wounding, but not
killing, opponents, advantages that foot soldiers don't always
appreciate, and increased knowledge about wounding allows weapons
design to reflect those advantages.  (Killing is strategically
"better" than ineffective wounding.)  Self-defense has different
requirements - immediate incapacitation isn't much of an issue for
battle but it is for self-defense.  If we go with "self-defense is
appropriate use", this would argue against specific military arms on
the grounds that they aren't destructive enough.
--
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:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:51:35 -0500
From:         Tom <SSTSTJB@VCUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Camille Paglia

          I am still reading/studying Sexual Personae, currently on Ch. 20
          'The Beautiful Boy as Destroyer', subtitled Wilde's Picture of
          Dorian Gray.  The work in a masterpiece.  Her opening....
          In The Beginning Was Nature ..... is a stroke of her true genius.
          I have a couple BS degrees as well as my masters and I can say
          with all honesty, This Book has been the hardest to digest of any
          I have read.  Her command of Literature and History is fantastic.
          Few books have been as thought provoking as this.  Thought provoking
          in that the core philosphy considered by Paglia has enormous
          applications to my personal life and how I _now_ view the world,
          religion, family, my relationship with my wife and 2 year old son....

          It may take several months for most people to read this book, but
          try to refrain from criticism if it is not based on your personal
          reading of a 20th Century Masterpiece.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: The Draft Dodger, Adulterer, & Commie Sympathizer
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:59:28 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <POLITICS%92110414191503@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU> "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET> writes:
 Will he remain
>true as a moderate Democrat, or as Ed Koch says will he give in to the parties
>"radicals?"

Listening to anything Ed "If you put a new wastebasket in the subway
station I'll let you pave the Village and put up a luxury complex" Koch
says is a sure recipe for disaster. Especially given his support of Al
"Little Guy with a Big Unethical Wallet" D'Amato.


>Carl-----------------+

--John Mignault
  jbm@panix.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:19:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

I have a question-- is the House Bank run on taxpayer money or is it a
private institution run off of the funds of its members?

--Julie
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:29:03 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

This letter is a little long, but I especially want our new 'conservative'
list members to read it carefully.  I think that the libertarian perspective
on individual rights presents a substantial challenge to both the methods
and the goals of the Religious Right.

In article <009634F1.3DA9CFA0.22454@alpha.hendrix.edu> erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU writes:
>In a sense you are right. From a purely traditional republican standpoint,
>the Libertarians are the only ones right on target. However, I'm not sure the
>Religious Right is "inconsistent." 

You gave the example of abortion.  Unfortunately, both pro-choice and
pro-life positions can be stated in terms of individual rights, simply
by shifting the definition of 'individual'.  If a fetus is a person with
rights, then 'pro-life' could be the individual rights position.  If a 
fetus is NOT a person with rights, then 'pro-choice' could be the individual
rights position.  So I don't think that abortion makes for a useful
example.

Let's pick a more useful example, one which I think demonstrates the
inconsistent support for capitalism and individual rights of the Religious
Right: the war on drugs.

A consistent position of individual rights would demand that the state not
interfere with our choice of recreational drugs.  So long as a person is not
harming (or endangering) others, that person ought (in the individual rights
position) to be left alone.  Does this mean that drug use is morally o.k.?
No, it does not.  We can consistently say that some activities generally
OUGHT not to be done, even when we say that those activities OUGHT to be
legal.  This is, in a sense, the essence of the individual rights position
that people ought to have a certain 'moral sphere' in which they are allowed
to make choices for themselves... for better or for worse.

It would be amusing, if it weren't so sad, to see the same people who so
clearly recognize the dangers of state intervention into economic affairs
through excessive regulation of economic practices... the same people who
cry so loudly and eloquently for individual freedom in the tradition of
Locke, Jefferson, etc.... suddenly become raving collectivists talking about
the 'good of the society' as somehow distinct from the good of the
individuals comprising that society... whenever the topic of drugs comes up.

The position of the Religious Right on individual rights is flawed and
self-contradictory.  And I think that it is clear that such an opening
for state intervention into our lives must rely on the same kinds of
arguments that these conservatives claim to abhor in other areas.  

This kind of sloppy defense of capitalism is doomed to failure, as so
eloquently evidenced by our ever growing (even under the so-called
'small government' Republican administrations) government sector.

The false division of life into 'economic' and 'social' spheres is
invalid.  Freedom is a unity.

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:16:41 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Days of the Week

From:         Andrew MacRae <acm@SUN.COM>

>        You have raised my curiosity.  What about software packages used
>        in Iran?  Which year dating system do they use on reports and
>        for accounting, etc?

My last personal experience with Iran dates to pre PC.  However, say
you are in Iran and are using Word Perfect.  Well, instead of using
the "13 November 1992" format you use "11,13,1992" format or better
yet you use the European "13,11,1992" format.  Now all you have to do
is when you set your "date' on the PC to reflect the Iranian year
which is 13xx many years (not because their year is different but
because they are really living in the 1300's  :-)  Just a joke, guys,
please no hate mail from the many pro-Iranian members of this
group. :-)

The only thing is that now the months are different.  For example
the eleventh month corresponds to 21 Jan to 21 Feb (I think!).

I have an interesting story here.  One day the Shah woke up and
decided that he is gonna add 1500 years to our calendar.  (That
is the 2500 years of Persian Kingdom before the start of the
Moslem religion.)  So all of a sudden the calender year changed
from say 1352 to 2852.  Just imagine you were born 1332 and then
you were living in the year 2852.     :-)

> Andrew MacRae

--KAT

p.s. Andrew, thanks for the kind words.  But what I really wanted
was you to attest that *I* never questioned your intelligence
not that *you* never did mine. :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:47:32 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>That's my point exactly, Jimbo. Libertarians ARE economically conservative
>and so is Pat Buchanan. "quasi-Nazi antics"??? What are you talking about?
>Nazi's were extreme liberal socialists who were pro-abortion and pro-opression.
>Buchanan is on the opposite end of the spectrum from them.
>--Steve

	Nazi's were anti-abortion.

	More people for the master race, you know.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
X-VMS-Cc: E7L8RAF
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:37:46 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Politics/History Trivia - Who woulda thunk?

     Last week,someone chastized Julie for suggesting that Anita Hill
would have been a better choice for the Supreme Court.  His objection
was that Anita Hill "wasn't even a judge".  Then followed a few
isolated observations about justices who'd not been judges - including
ol' prune face Wm. Rehnquist, the current grand w- , uh, chief justice.
A little bit of fact checking yield the following ratio:

                       44 / 106

That is, 44 of 106 justices had never, prior to their appointment to
the Supreme Court, served as a judge in any court.  I even excluded
one whose brief bio indicated that he had served as justice of the
peace somewhere.

It seemed that the most common pre-SC occupation for the justices
was Attorney General.  I find this trend rather interesting.

I'm not supposing that this information means anything in particular
but I thought that many of us might be interested.

And, even though I was here first, and even though I own the "Steve"
signature, I will from now on sign "Steve R." so as not to be
confused with the new guy:  double minus Steve.

Steve R.

"Rush Limbaugh Drools"  -me
From: jfisher@NETXWEST.COM ((Jonathan Fisher))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:34:12 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >pat Buchanan--He'll do for America what he did for George Bush
>
> >Bill Clinton--He'll do for America what he did for Arkansas.
>
> >with the various improvements he made like in education,lets hope so.
>
> Like I've said before when you at the bottom you can only go up. It's not
> hard to improve on the worst.
>
> Kemp/Bennett '96
>
> ------mike.....
>
Like someone responded to this comment before I say, it's pretty idiotic to
toss away all of his improvements just because the state started at the
bottom. Obviously his predecessors weren't able to improve the situation.
On the other hand I'll bet you say that when you have a great country and
you're number 1 in a lot of different stats and the end of your rein comes
and the same great country is way down the list in the same stats, it's
pretty easy to ruin the best.
Not that you're biased or anything!

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:23:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Term Limits

One thing about this term limit idea:

        I have heard from many sources (this list included) about how
hard it is to beat an incumbent - franking, tv studios, etc.  Alright, just
one item:  are you going to limit people to ONE term?  Otherwise all your
whining about incumbent advantage doesn't hold water!!!

        You see, if you limit them to MORE than one term ( but less than, say,
four) then they have that "advantage" for at least a few elections!!! The only
way the incumbent argument works is if you limit service to one term (or one
at a time).


Whew!

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 23:34:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Special Interests
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

it used to be (in Truman's time) that a "special interest" referred to
a business deal or a company that serves to benifit by means of
financial profit from some form of legislation.

I.e., if I had a company that manufactued "widgets" and I approached my
congressional reps and told them that there should be special widget
incentives to boost the sales of widgets then I would be acting on behalf
of a special interest.

However, these days we classify people who want basic rights or are
fighting for their lives as "special interests.


Examples include people with AIDS, Gay Rights Activists, Abortion Rights
Activists, advocates of Religious Freedom and groups such as the NRA,
the NAACP and the Libertarian Party.

It gets frustrating to see how we classify things in such negative terms.
Civil Rights and Human Rights are not "Special Interests."  Business is
a special interest, and Dan Quayle's support for a referendum which
gives special tax breaks to Golf Pros is as well (This is no joke--
As a senator, Quayle got this passed  into law).

I would even hesitate to call groups such as the KKK and Right to Life
people as "special interests" though I think they fall a little more
into the category because they are looking for legislation which is
basically designed to intrude upon other people's lives for their
own purposes.  However, some right-to-lifers feel that abortion is
murder and from that perspective the abortion issue can't really be
seen as a "special interest" on any side.  (i'm not saying this to
bring up an abortion argument-- just to illustrate a point).

I dunno-- I am just aggravated by how we define a "special interest"

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 13:22:03 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: Calooh! Callay!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

In a sense you are right. From a purely traditional republican standpoint,
the Libertarians are the only ones right on target. However, I'm not sure the
Religious Right is "inconsistent." For example, let's take the matter of
abortion. Most member of the Religious Right I have talked to state that
they are not in favor of a constitutional ammendment outlawing abortion but
rather dropping the federal allowance of it and letting the authority of
deciding the legalization or illegalization revert back to the states. This
view is 100% consistent with traditional Republican views.
--Steve
From: ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: return path looks okay...maybe i should have used some
              shower-to-shower
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:04:57 GMT
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

well, that last message i sent seems to have gone where it was supposed to go.
i wanted to talk a little bit about gays and lesbians and the armed forces
(those of you preparing to ask me about elvis costello can just
shut up right now).  i would like to point out that if one reads one's
homer (or thucydides), one will discover that the ancient greeks were highly
in favor of the practice of conscripting gay lovers into their military
ranks.  one tends to fight a bit more fiercely when there exists the
possibility that one's lover might be killed due to your own inaction
(although this could backfire.  i can think of a couple of ex-es that i
would probably not exactly jump on a grenade for).
who cares?  what does one's sexual preference have to do with this issue?

signed, baffled in minnesota.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:33:46 -0500
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: bounced checks

From: K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

>Let me get this straight: if -T.'s credit union did not charge
>interest, then the Congress's situation would have been OK with
>you?

No.  I was merely pointing out that T's analogy is thouroughly inappropriate.

If T's credit union did not charge interest, then at least his credit union and
the Congressional "bank" (you're right in pointing out that its not,
technically, a bank) would be analogous.  However, in this case, if T bounced
147 checks (overdrafts) I would still be the first to say that he is either a
boob (for being unable to balance his checkbook) or a scoundrel (for taking
advantage of an implicitly emergency-only perk).

>At any rate, the fact that the overdrafts (no checks in question
>were ever bounced) were interest free did not cost the tax-payers
>(that is you) a penny.

True, as far as I can tell.  I will point out though, that whether you call
them checks or overdrafts is really immaterial to my complaints.  I never
accused Congressmen of breaking the law, which would be the case with bounced
checks as opposed to mere "overdrafts."

>So what is it to you?

Again, it suggests that the representative in question (namely Barbara Boxer)
is either a boob or a scoundrel.  Whether or not she actually broke the law or
playe around with public funds is beside the point.  Either reason is certainly
cause to vote her out of office.

>Will you define a "bounced" check and then we'll talk.

I think you see the def under which I'm operating.  If you want to stick to
your terminology of overdrafts, fine.  I don't see how that would affect my
point.

>--KAT

Jason
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Flowers and Hill
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:33:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
>
>>        My objection is not that Bill slept around, but that he lied about it,
>> even when it was obvious that he had had an affair.

	That should have been "not so much that".  And while Hillary might
forgive him, that doesn't mean I have to trust him.

>Oh really?  I think people who say they don't care if Clinton served or
>not, or whether Clinton slept or not but they care whether or he lied are
>not truthful to themselves.  Look, it is obvious that George Bush lied
>when he said Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person for the
>job and lied when he said that Thomas' race was not a factor in his
>decision.  So how come we are not up and arms about those lies?  Let's

	They're quite immaterial given the other factors: Thomas'
unqualifications and the sexual harassment controversy.

>be honest, many are upset that Clinton did not serve and that he
>cheated on his wife.  So let's drop this nonsense about we don't
>care such and such but we care about his lying about it.

	The lying only reinforced his dishonesty.  Like a used car saleman, who
when caught lying about whether a car has been in a wreck, "explains" by saying
that "it's been fixed, so it's really better than new!".
	Maybe you would buy a car that has been in a wreck, but now you know
the guy will "say anything".  That's *is* what makes me uncomfortable.

>One more point, lying about what you did on the job is way more
>serious than lying about your martial infidelity.  Clinton might
>have lied in an attempt to preserve his marriage (none of our
>business whether or not he has been fateful in the first place)
>but why did Bush lie to us?

	I don't see it as a Bush vs. Clinton "who is more evil" match.  I
didn't vote for Bush, either :).  You'd see me bashing Bush, too, if there
weren't already others doing it so often.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU