HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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, 6 Jan 1993 14:37:59 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Discriminating minds want to know...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Brett' says:
>        I wouldn't say there is a *right* to discriminate, but I would say it's
>not the place of government to define discrimination.
>        It was government, after all, that gave us slavery, separate but equal,
>Jim Crow laws, etc.  It was the people--protesting, lobbying, etc.--that fought
>for the repeal of government mandated discrimination.

Who is the government? While the government may or may not accurately reflect
the *interests* of the great masses of "the people," it certainly does reflect
the opinions and prejudices of them...

Wouldn't it be more honest to say that there were different groups of people
with differing opinions of their real and imagined interests, that arrived
at a series of temporary agreements through the medium of a government?
Compromise is necessarily a process wherein neither side is truly satisfied
with the result and usually not the rapidity of the process either, this
does not mean that the process is useless or necessarily the worst of the
alternatives.

>        And it's very ironic that what is largely a phyrric victory (quotas and
>such) is being touted as the reason why government should be given (really,
>"keep") such powers.

What I find as ironic is that despite the persistence of the claims made about
quotas and the damage that they are doing to a variety of groups; no one ever
seems to provide any figures of quotas that are/have been in use or any
statistical evidence of a decline in the earnings/wealth of the "harmed"
group that can be tied to these "quotas."

Can Brett' tell us how many minorities he has been forced to hire by the
government in the place of a more competent white male? What percentage of
Brett''s workers "must" be minorities?


>        What has 30 years achieved?

Not enough; few argue that we have acheived "true" equality of opportunity.

>I'd say that's time enough for the current
>"solution" to have worked.  Toss it and try again.

I'd say that it is time for an honest assessment of the results in context
of the goals and an assessment of the vigor with which the solution was
applied. Perhaps we might even examine the effects of other contemporaneous
changes in government policy (like the "Reagan Revolution") had upon
the progress of these programs.

>I'd suggest letting the people decide.  (Gasp!)

Didn't they already decide that they wanted to promote equality, or are
you asserting that we should take a step back and reassess the resolve
of "the people?"

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:35:20 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: the biBle
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >
> > Once again, it seems relevant to point out that the list POLITICS is not
> > for the purposes of religious prozlytizing, or for promoting the Bible as
> > a text with political effacy. It seems to this insignificant individual
> > that this religion business is, as is sexual preference and other areas,
> > a matter of personal choice. To use religion, or religious beliefs, to
> > buttress political arguments is to subvert both the rules and spirit of
> > the list, and in addition, is quite annoying in that religious belief does
> > NOT constitute, to my mind, a base for political argument. VMS
>
>    Now we cannot write about the Middle East, the Balkans, and abortion,
>    and homosexuality, the ACLU suing towns with religious displays and
>    so on.

   no, it just means that religion should not be used as the basis for
arguing that doctors who perform abortions should go to prison, or that
homosexuals ought to be rounded up and shot, and like that.

  talking about the *effects* of religion is fine by me, demanding that
your religious dogmas should become part of common law because god (tm)
told you so is not.

rtf
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: AA
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:02:42 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


        "Better than what we had before" is both subjective and relatively easy
to obtain.  Separate but equal is "better" than slavery.  Some jobs are
better than none.

        But to say that since the laws have worked somewhat, that we shouldn't
try something new is a bit short sighted.

        Why lock into results that have not reached equality?

        The GM job process is well known to all.  But, like white males
everywhere realize, proving reverse discrimination is almost impossible without
written proof, and the GM process will not be found in any memo.

(Separate thought begins here :)

        BTW-as proof of both the union's goal of "a safe workplace" and GM's
willingness to fight for the best workers are both suspect:

        They recently rehired all workers busted in 1990 for selling and using
drugs at the downtown Dayton plant.  They didn't want to fight the unions at
this time, who (and always will) insist that these workers be rehired.

        Better check that new car, someone might have forgotten their stash.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:55:13 EST
From:         jc-s <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colora

>
>From Robert
>Adultery and most divorce grounds are against the Word.  Sex (making love)
>is a gift to heterosexual married couples.  It is also fun.
>

Yes, i'm aware of THAT. what i wanted to know was whether or not you
thought that divorced people be denied rights that the rest of
us get automatically. Like the right NOT to be fired from a job,
or the right NOT to be refused housing, based on marital status.

THAT was my question.

jenna
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:01:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bobbie Riconosciuto speaks o

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:26:00 ET "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET> said:
> Hi, umm...
>
> This is very interesting, but I am not sure what it is actually ABOUT.
> I recognize the Spiro case but I'm having trouble following what the
> conversation is about.
>
> Some explanation, please?

Yeah, I mean, it makes a great soap opera and all, but why is this
being posted??  I remember about someone killed in Martinsburg, W. Va--
(It is on I-81, the largest city in W. Va's Northeastern Panhandle), but
never thought it would connect to California and Washington State.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:34:13 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: estimating

>From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>

>>--KAT (more thinking--less repetition--longer school hours--
>>       longer school year--no summer vacation rather shorter
>>       more frequent vacations--smaller classes--higher paid
>>       teachers--shorter work days for teachers)
>
>
>kat, i agree w/all these pts. except.....how can you have longer school
>hours but shorter work days for teachers???

By hiring more teachers.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:48:16 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> On Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:54:00 EST Travis Kidd said:
> >How is putting up a cross considered hate speech?
>
> It depends upon the group putting it up; I doubt that if the Salvation
> Army put up a cross, the action would be considered hate speech.
>
> >-Travis
>
> Evelyn
>

In fact one of the people who knocked down the KKK's cross has received
a permit to put up a cross.  I'm sure that it's up by now.  He says
that he wants to erase the ugly memories of the KKK's cross.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @MIDEUR, @VAL, @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:08:39 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Responses to Mideur-L posts on the Balkans, #4 of 8
Comments: To: mideur-l@ubvm.bitnet, val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet,
          olsenj@stolaf.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet,
          srdjan%cathy@kri.fer.yu

Date: 31 Dec 1992 10:20:48 +0000 (GMT)
From: Moss Madden <JU39@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Subject: projection of the effects of US intervention in Bosnia

> Please criticise this projection if I am naive.

> 1) US attacks Serbs in Bosnia and/or Serbia
> 2) Serbia attacks Kosovo and Macedonia

Well, if this scenario were to occur, I suspect #1 and #2 would be
reversed, that US and/or UN response would occur AFTER either
Macedonia or Kosovo were attacked.

> 3) Greece and Bulgaria invade Macedonia

No. Greece might act on behalf of her own agenda if her borders were
transgressed, NATO would restrain them from attacking, OR the world
would be treated to a fiery smashup of NATO. Bulgaria might WANT to
attack, and Bulgarian "irregulars" might well involve themselves in
the fighting, but the state of Bulgaria would be hard-pressed to make
war at this moment in time.

> 4) Turkey invades Macedonia

NATO would be an inhibitor in this scenario also, though Greece and
Turkey are, and have been, "mortal enemies." Talk about ethnic
hatreds! I suspect if Serbia attacked Macedonia, the "UN" would
attack, through its surrogates, Serbia.

> 5) CIS Red Army invades Turkey

Here again, various "CIS states" may send forces into the fray under
one guise or another, but not to fight a "formal" Russo-Turkish war.

> 6) WWIII

No. Perhaps EuroWar I, (or 100, who has ever counted all the
"all-European wars?") or the Third Balkan war, but it is highly
unlikely "World War III" would emanate from the Balkan "mess."

> Moss Madden

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  POL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:39:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      can oil do that?

ok, who knows about chemistry?

fred said that some british guy said, that since the oil spilled over there
was "lighter" it should evaporate. i did not think oil could evaporate.
so, somebody, ans. please....can oil evaporate???

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:29:44 -0500
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      A forward from the funky list

The interesting thing about Clinton is that the solutions he has
championed -- job training, improved public education, and so forth --
have NOT been race-specific.  They are for everyone, black and white.

I understand the dilemma of not speaking up (and becoming invisible)
vs. speaking up (and being dismissed as "special interest").  The
answer:  keep pushing.  Don't be silent.  But make sure you are
really PUSHING, not PULLING.  There is a difference.

I realize this article was forwarded from a newspaper, but my response
to it is best articulated in the essay published in the Nov. 16
(post-election) edition of TIME magazine entitled, "A Pretty Good Society."
It was written by Henry Louis Gates, head of the African American studies
dept. at Harvard. An EXCELLENT essay.  It offers the clearest picture, IMO, of
what Clinton's ultimate vision of policy and racial division in this
country may be -- and it also explains why the rapper who wrote the
article forwarded here decided to vote for Clinton anyway.  (In my humble
o, anyhow.)

READ THIS ESSAY!  It is very relevant to the article that was posted here.
Make an effort to find it and read it if you are at all interested in
the past, present and future of America.

Ellen
ebedgert@suadmin.syr.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:58:59 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
Subject:      Parental neglect?

From a purely sympathetic/psychological view, the Illinois kids were "abused."
However, from a legal/law enforcement point of view, to prove abuse, you usuall
y have to demonstrate some form of physical harm was inflicted.  In deference t
o your four years of experience, do any of the people involved in this discussi
on have any data on the actual number of homosexual parents there are in the US
?  I suspect their relative number, versus the total number of heterosexual
parents is so small as to make them so statistically insignificant that the pro
bability of one of their kids showing up at your institution would have been sl
im to none.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:23:54 -0700
From:         David Appell <appell@CSN.ORG>
Subject:      estimating
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

Robert (Sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet) wrote:
> Clerk:      "That'll be $22.53 sir."
> Customer:   "He's a twenty, I estimate it's about the same."
> Clerk:      "Thank you.  Have a nice day."
> Shop owner: "You're fired!  Stupid!"

   This completely misses KAT's original point, which I think was a good one.

   The point is not to demonstrate, without end, your ability to perform
22.53 - 20.00.  Once you can do it, what's the point of doing it 1,000 more
times?  Cash registers can do it better than you can, anyway.
   The point is to be able to figure out where you can buy the widgets you're
selling, and how much you can afford to pay for them, and to determine your
market and the potential to sell your widgets, and how much you can afford to
pay for cash registers and square footage for a great location, and so how
much you should charge for the widgets before the guy down the street
undercuts you. He won't do it because he can calculate 22.53 - 20.00 faster
than you can, or more often. He'll do it because he can estimate his income
and expenses better than you can, and because he's a better thinker.
   And if you're making widgets, you won't make really good ones because
you're really good at calculating 22.53 - 20.00. You'll make them because you
have the smarts to install fancy computers and do-dads and stuff, leaving you
free to worry about other things that computers *can't* do -- like figuring
out if you replaced the tubes on your widget with transistors, they'll last
longer, run better, and can be made at less expense.

   That's the point.


        -- David
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:43:32 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Braun

>>Same thing for DC statehood.

>        Give it back to Maryland.

No thanks, the last thing that Maryland needs is yet another city that
has been destroyed by idiot politicians, that will take billions to fix.

Let's give it to Ohio.  B)

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:32:03 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      nothin' much to say :)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
I'm not sure how 135 messages were generated overnight, but I really
enjoyed reading all the discussions.  My only frustration was finding that
others had very ably expressed the responses I was fixin' to make :)

I'm with linda et al. -- sending a kid to private school does not imply a
lack of support for public schools.  I'm contemplating sending my own child
to a private school, but that won't stop me from supporting public
education.

Jamie and Peter have said everything I could have (and done it much better)
about discrimination, quotas, etc.  Geez, if quotas -- even in the public
sector -- were real, I'd be working someplace else by now.

-T., with his allusion to Jeopardy, made the same point I would have about
addiction-as-disease.  Yes, the idea is subject to abuse.  But that doesn't
make it invalid, nor does it abrogate the usefulness of treatment programs.
I think Todddd was right on when he pointed out the difference between
taking a physiological/psychological/sociological approach to addiction and
taking a strictly legal/moralistic approach.  Good job!

I, too, would really like to see the details of the EPA second-hand smoking
study.  The easy question I want an answer to is:  how much second-hand
smoke is dangerous?  How many ppm over how long a time period?

Kerry
who doesn't smoke in her own house :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:13:19 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      school daze

Robert lets out some sort of cry of ecstacy upon discovering that the
first child will attend private school. I'm sure this is a long standing
tradition among first children. Why do you point it out at this time?
Do your children attend public or private school? What does this have
to do with politics? I wouldn't be surprised if the soon to be former
first dog went to a private school. Do you suppose we have to pay for
first dog food and first kitty litter? :)

fred
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Date: 8 Jan 1993 13:11 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <08JAN93.09474540.0140.MUSIC@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>,        
 "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU> writes...
>    if all he does is talk to people, how then can he be practicing
>w/o a license? i really don't see how they can hassle him for that.

I don't have time to research today, but presumably Ohio defines practicing
medicine to include professional consultation.

>. . . . 
>   sometimes it is an act of mercy to help someone "go gentle into
>that good night".

I discussed this issue with two other law-student friends of mine last night. 
On a philosphical basis, we agreed that unwanted extension of life by
artificial means is unneccessary (and therefore living wills should be
promoted), but none of us has come to a decision on euthanasia or assisted
suicide.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:54:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:29:00 ET "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET> said:
How is putting up a cross considered hate speech?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:56:26 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Privatizations and standard of living

>        Well, such splendid generalizations are not always true.
>Historically, since they gained independence, mass privatization in Latin
>America, Africa and huge parts of Asia has made the living standards go
>down and the killing, repression and rise of dictatorships go up.

  You are a fine one to be talking about dictatorships, Ramon.
(Or absentee landlords, for that matter.  ;-)

  But, to the point; "communism" has not had much success in Africa,
either.  Been to Ethiopia recently?  I'm not sure that the blame for
the problems in the third world is properly levelled at the economic
system that the relevant strongmen pay lip-service to.  I think you
would do better to blame it on cold war politics (and proxy wars)
over the last 50 years, and perhaps the "peace dividend" of a huge
military industrial complex (on both sides) trying to prop itself
up by arming anyone who'll pay.

                      -el Presidente
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:57:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5

(From Andy, I think:)
>>Is that enough, or should Congress be able to remove people from
>>office for other reasons?  Should impeachment be easier to pull off?
>>(The House indicts and the Senate runs the trial.)

(From Jamie:)
>I think this issue has emerged before.
>
>During Watergate, the question arose whether the word "high"
>modifies "Crimes and Misdemeanors" or only "Crimes." Either
>interpretation is a bit awkward. (What is a "high misdemeanor"??
>Why would only "high" Crimes be impeachable, but ANY sort of
>misdemeanor?) Also, does "being committed by a sitting president"
>make an otherwise "low" crime or misdemeanor into a high one?
>The Court seemed to think so during Watergate.
>
>Jamie

Impeachment is the legal means of removing a high-ranking government official
from office due to "High crimes & Misdemeanors"; it is _not_ the legal means
whereby _all_ indictments are served.  The direct final outcome of an impeach-
ment is removal from office; not fines, imprisonment, etc.  The interpretation
has clearly been that while impeachment is our means of removing a President,
etc., it may not be used for every criminal offense.

This does not directly rule out the criminal indictment of a sitting President,
although Cox and his staff had their doubts.  They were navigating new water,
without any hard precedent.  (Archibald Cox, Special Prosecutor in the
Watergate affair, for y'all youngins).

I'm not sure exactly what Court Jamie references above; to my knowledge, the
Supreme Court's involvement in that whole mess was limited to their July 24,
1974 ruling that Nixon had to turn over the tapes of 54 conversations
recorded in the Oval Office.  I can't recall any kind of ruling as to whether
or not "High" included "Misdemeanors."  I would like ask Jamie to clear that up,
as an actual friendly question (believe it or not).

Anyway, while impeachment must be used to remove from X office, there's a
large body of opinion that says you can still indict on other crimes.  What
happens next is anybody's guess (remember that Leon Jaworski - Cox's replacement
following the Saturday Night Massacre - had enough evidence to indict Nixon,
but followed Cox's belief that a sitting President was unindictable.  Thus, when
the grand jury returned their counts on March 1, 1974, seven Nixon aides were
placed on trial, and Nixon himself was mentioned in the indictment - as an
_unindicted co-conspirator_).

Hope everyone stayed well doing whatever it was you all did this "holiday
season."

-T.


"The Master held that no words were bad if they were used in an appropriate
context.  'Profanity has been known to offer spiritual relief denied to
prayer.'"

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