HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:05:09 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: kids

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:14:00 EST linda said:
>
>>As Kerry points out, she can be artificially inseminated.
>
>>And a gay man can deposit sperm in a sperm bank, and thus become
>>a biological father. (Well, not quite "thus," but you get the idea.)
>
>>Glad I could clear all of this up.
>
>just as an added aside, they could, if the spirit so moved them, do it
>the more direct way.....
>
>physiologically speaking......it could happen.

And indeed it has.  One of Britain's main gay rights campaigners, singer
Tom Robinson, is himself the father of a child, conceived with the assistance
of a woman of the lesbian persuasion, whose name escapes me for the moment.

>
>-linda
>
>>Jamie

james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:21:18 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon
              31 Dec 1992 13:54:02 PST from <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>

The question is whether Bush can pardon himself now, even before
he is impeached.

Well if the Constitution meant to say that, "The President may not
pardon anyone of an impeachable crime" rather than "...stop
an impeaching process," then all cases would add up.

Therefore, Ford can pardon Nixon while Nixon could not do it himself.
Because the crime was impeachable while Nixon was the president
but once he resigned, the crime was NOT impeachable any more.  Under
my scenario, for example, Bush could not pardon Jim Wright before impeachment
if indeed his crimes were impeachable.

(I know my version is NOT the Constitution version, but I think mine
is more logical, Logic Czar?)  Under the current law, could the
President pardon someone else of an impeachable crime BEFORE the
impeachment has started?  Has this EVER happened before?

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:57:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer?

The question shouldn't be "Why?" ; it should be "Who cares?"

<grin>


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:20:14 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?

From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

> The huge majority of the unemployed in the U.S. are white. Therefore,
> white Americans are more unemployed as a whole than non-white  Americans.

> Contest:
> Come up with the most amusing example to demonstrate the fallacy
> of Ramon's reasoning.

Posters from Brown make the largest number of intelligent posts
to list POLITICS than any other single university.  Therefore,
people from Brown are more intelligent than those from other
universities.

I fear my example is not "amusing" to Jamie, but nevertheless does
demonstrate the fallacy in Ramon's reasoning.  :-)

> Jamie

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:14:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Democracy is a political system. Socialism is an economic system.
They are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory. There can be
democratic socialists and totalitarian socialists, just as there are
democratic capitalists and totalitarian capitalist.

-Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:09:52 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      double penalty?
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Dr Pizz writes:
> I agree that government should stay out of all the things you mentioned
> except abortion.  However, the penalties for crimes committed under the
> influence of drugs, etc.  must be treated with double penalties to
> ensure that people treat these freedoms with the required personal
> responsibility.

A murder is a murder. Why differentiate the penalty?

What about 1/2 drug crimes 3/4 drug crimes?

What about strong and weak drugs?

Is alcohol a drug?

Is butter a drug?

What about frequent-drug-users and first-timers ?



Caius thinks: same crime - same penalty.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:29:29 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I know that I am going to regret this. :-)

Phil,


>
> --
> I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>
Why??

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:49:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      kids

Just to quibble...a lesbian woman can have a child if she's raped.

Hmm.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:36:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

Gee, I'm glad >someone< agrees with me on this issue.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:43:13 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      strong foreign policy
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

james p mcbride:
>> Yes, Hitler had a VERY strong foreign policy, didn't he?  I believe he was
>> especially strong in the Sudetenland, Poland, and, for a time, Vichy.  Val's
>> point still stands, Hitler conducted his foreign policy by terror.

Effectiveness should be a measure.

Declaring war on the whole world just to satusfy a dictator megalomania
is not a wise policy.

Declaring war on the whole world just to get rid of a group of people
"who rule the world" is not a wise policy.

Declaring war on the whole world just because you think your nation is
ubermensch is not a wise policy.

Hitler's policy turned out not to be so STRONG, didn't it?


Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:58:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 1993

Sam:

Yes, Clinton reads and speaks German.  I don't know how fluently, but
I remember reading somewhere that he has a fair familiarity with the
language, and that he makes a point of reading German newspapers and
magazines in the original.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 2 Jan 1993 10:04:26 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments

While I hope you'll forgive the comparison, Sam, do you really
think that Reagan (who actually was a president of the United States)
chose his cabinet on any more firm basis than likes/dislikes, and
of course the all-important input from his wife's astrologer?
MWM
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:05:28 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

>From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>>Nor did Walsh lose Bush. Yet. We'll see.
>
>        Frankly, I expect Bush to do what Nixon didn't.  "Lose" the documents.

Ok. You've registered your prediction. We'll see.

>>>        Walsh is simply grandstanding, trying to get a President indicted.
>>
>>Well, he may be trying to get a president indicted. I think that's
>>a special prosecutor's job. Or was Archie Cox simply grandstanding?
>>
>>("Impeached" is the right word, I think.)
>
> *If* a president is guilty.  But I think Walsh just wants to be able to
>say he got "a" president.  Bush is the only one left :).

Huh. Well, you're entitled to that opinion. (I'm still trying to
one-up James in the toleration contest.)

>>Note, though, that Bush could have saved a LOT of expense by acknowledging
>>that he had the notes much earlier.
>
>        He could have, but is there any reason why Bush should have cooperated
>with a man like Walsh earlier?  Walsh is using a shotgun, hoping he hits
>*something* before he runs out of ammo.

Yeah, there IS a reason. Bush should have cooperated so that the
truth could have come out. Along the way, he would have helped save
a lot of money. You remember, all that money you were complaining about?

Walsh's strategy was a common one. Start with some relatively
easy targets. As you nail some of the easy ones, you GAIN ammo
to go after the tough ones.
But the easier targets kept lying. They were convicted for it, and
would have had to pay a little something, but the Big Boy handed
out a "soft on crime" Christmas present.

>>>        That's why I said "supposed" to be independent.  Any organization
>>>staffed through patronage will end up like this.
>>
>>I agree. And Brett's suggestions about changing the way the Justice
>>Dept. is appointed make some sense to me.
>>
>>Until Mitchell, though, I don't think the Attorney General was
>>widely regarded as a "patronage" appointment. Now it's a commonplace.
>>Jamie
>
>        No, it was Reagan's appointments that started the downward slide.
>(Horrors, I've said something bad about the Great One :).  Most analysts agree
>that the justice dept. in the 60s was the high point for that organization.

Hmm. If the 60's WERE the high point, then the downturn did not
start with Reagan! (Maybe I'd better go check some of the dates
on Brett's notorious charts??)

(Reagan was elected in the 80's, Brett, you probably forgot that. :-)
There were all those 70's in between. And John Mitchell was the
Attorney General during some of those 70's, the early ones.)

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:13:43 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      why gold - why commodity
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

VMS:
>It is interesting that Caius considers titanium as a new standard for "solid
>currency," I myself once offered the idea that the "new economy" of the future
>might be an energy-based economy. "Ergs (= "A centimeter-gram-second" unit of
>energy ...") or calories might be the new standard, or maybe even
> "foot-pounds."Again, we, as a total species planet-wide, have to agree on such
> a standard -

Chicago Mercantile Exchange trades GSCI Naerby Index wchich consists of
48% Energy (Crude oil, Heating oil, Unleaded gasoline)
23% Livestock
8%  Metals (aluminium. copper. gold etc)
rest foods, grains etc.

Any basket of commodities may be suitable for the task of money.
on condition it is *NOT* changed frequently. I mean 500 years, or so.
That's why i preffer gold to other commodities or baskets


>at the moment, "free market" standards demand a free-floating currency that
>measures against each other, and that is not pegged to a standard. It would
>seem to me that a free market advocate would accept the status quo, rather
>than attempt to go backward to a "fixed" standard (isn't that "government
>interference?"). VMS

Yes, the market will decide.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:44:05 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon

>From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
>
>> Just a quick question for the New Year!
>>
>>         If President Bush is investigated and convicted on the Iran-
>> Contra affair before Inauguration Day, can he pardon himself?
>>
>>                                 just wondering...
>>
>>                                         Bill
>>
>You bet.  That's why nothing will happen until he leaves office!
>
>Jonathan

No, that's definitely wrong. It is Triply wrong.

First of all, before he is convicted he must be impeached. If he is
impeached he can't pardon anyone, let alone himself.

Furthermore, a president NEVER has the power to grant pardons in
case of an impeachment, whether it is he who is impeached or
someone else.

Finally, if he COULD pardon himself, he could do it ex ante. He
could pardon himself for any crime he committed, even before
an investigation was begun.

Remember that Nixon was pardoned, though he was never tried or
even impeached.

And Vietnam draft evaders were pardoned though many of them were
never even investigated. (I think, I'm not sure about that.)

I doubt that a president could legally pardon himself for anything.
I don't think it says as much explicitly in the Constitution. The
closest thing is the clause that says he can't pardon someone in
a case of impeachment. But in any case it is clearly not in the
spirit of the pardon power for a president to pardon himself.

I like Brett's suggestion better. It is much trickier. I doubt
they'd get away with it, though.

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, 23 Dec 1992 12:44:38 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Kerry

Is there a law requiring protesters to be polite?  Is ACT-UP polite
when they protest at NYC School Board meetings, or City Council
meetings?  Is throwing condoms at the city councilmen polite?  Were the
Rodney King protesters polite????  I thought the ones who beat Reginald
Denny were especailly so...  Shall I go on?  Is Al Sharpton leading a
march through Bensonhurst to tell the residents they are all racists
polite???  Since when do we expect protesters to be polite??  I
certainly don't see pro-choice protestors being very tolerant or polite
to those who disagree with them...  So, Kerry, is it "polite" when you
agree, and "impolite" when you do not????

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:23:13 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

Also, Ollie North admitted to crimes he was convicted of later, the courts
overturned this - but it does not diminish his public admissions of specific
crimes. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:52:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      well, pardon me!

Yeah.  Clinton should pardon Bush, take a few swipes at Walsh, and tell
everyone to SHUT UP and behave.   <grin>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:03:23 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: More cabinet appointments
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Sam:

> Jonathan:
>
> >one's real feelings come out when you look at appointments and
> >laws that were pushed for.
>
> Politics is similar to chess. You don't appoint people because you
> have personal preferences, just like you don't move pieces because
> you like their form or shape. Everything is usually calculated to
> satisfy certain political interests. Personal feelings, no matter
> how strong, are usually put on hold.
But not necessarily. Especially when one is picking out a cabinet.
Since Clinton is going to spend a lot of time with these people, they
had better be people that he can get along with. So if Clinton felt
uncomfortable around women or other minorities, he wouldn't have
selected as many of them to serve in his cabinet.
>
> I think I can guess which of the following explanations of Bush's
> adventure in Somalia you are likely to choose:
> [...]
Based on what?
> Sam.
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:12:20 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hateful Penalties, some more

>>>To punish more severely those crimes they think are more heinous.
>
>>Is this Jamie's goal, or just the goal he thinks that legislators
>>may have had?  (As I remember, Jamie likes hate-crime enhancements.)
>
>I'd better clear this up.
>
>Actually, I don't see what difference it makes whether *I* like
>the hate speech enhancements or not. At least it doesn't matter
>to a real argument.

I was asking for "good" reasons.  "Bad" reasons aren't all that
interesting, even if they are offered by Jamie to keep things moving.
We can argue about how much "good" reasons that weren't a factor
matter.

>Not everything that is bad is unconstitutional.

Quite right, but the genie is out of the bottle.

>But many, most, policies that violate individual rights
>*are* unconstitutional.

That seems either circular or wrong (since the 9th and 10th are dead).
If we go with the "the only rights protected are those explicitly
listed or found in some penumbra" theory that is currently popular,
there are plenty of rights that can be violated without running into
constitutional problems.

>That's because, like Rasputin, the United States is blessed with an
>unusually strong constitution. (That's only by-the-way, but so is this
>whole explanation.)

The verb tense is wrong.  Rasputin, like the US, WAS blessed with an
unusually strong constitution; things have changed.

>>Given Jamie's model, it matters because worrying about some costs and
>>benefits does not imply worrying about the relevant costs and
>>benefits.  The criminally negligent may well be worrying about some
>>costs and benefits - how about some evidence showing that they're
>>worrying about the death costs and benefits?
>
>I'm not sure how you mean this.
>It doesn't matter whether they are "worrying" about the
>death costs and benefits. It matters whether they are
>worrying about the costs and benefits to themselves.

But, "calculation" doesn't imply that they're considering death as a
possibility.  A secret law can't have much deterrence effect, and the
legal consequences of an unconsidered possibility work basically the
same way.

>Second, I don't see why it matters whether the criminal is
>an "ordinary person" or a "person with a history of
>criminal activity." What matters, it seems to me, is whether
>the criminal pre-meditated the crime, whether he thought
>about its consequences and esp. its consequences for HIM.

History certainly matters for some goals, namely "prevent harm"
because we know that trends tend to continue.  (If someone repeatedly
bashes others "in the heat of passion", we've got to do something
about THEIR passion because other people manage to be passionate
without bashing anyone.)  It also calls into question a "I didn't know
what I was doing" argument.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:46:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Home ownership among the poor es
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >Can you provide some meaningful stats that will show that a significant
> >amount of money appropriated by congress to be paid as income support
> >is being diverted by agencies to other purposes? (By this I mean are
> >agencies using targetted funds for things in-house other than for which
> >they were intended, salaries, supplies, office redecoration, etc.)
>
>         Of course not, no one keeps stats like that, or issues reports on how
> much they diverted :).
>
>         However, you can look at
>
>         1) The increase in bureaucrats per recipient
>         2) Wether the problem is being alieviated
>         3) How much fraud, waste and abuse is found eventually
>
>         Given that an audit of 15 hospitals yielded $42 million in fraud, I
> think there's considerable reason to suspect the amount being wasted/misused i
> in the billions.

I've already noted that this "fraud" might be an illusion.  I have also
read studies that report that actual cases of welfare "fraud" are not
any greater (in proportion) than other cases of financial dishonesty,
such as diddling your income taxes, working or hiring people off the
books, reporting the wrong sale price on a private car sale to lower
the sales tax, and the like (in fact, NC recently went to charging sales
tax on used cars according to the book value, not the reported price).

Now as for bureaucrats per recipient, my guess is that any actual
increase can be attributed to increased eligibility checking, not waste
and inefficiency.  In fact, most of the information I have read points
to increasing caseloads for caseworkers.

Your second question brings up an interesting question of intent.  I
have already noted that the present system isn't really intended to
provide a cure, just symptomatic relief.  At that it does a moderately
good job.

Best,
Peter

> >-other Andy
>
> Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:11:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: what makes a good parent?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Regarding the Chicago couple who "abused" their children Vs. how good
a homosexual couple might be, all I can Say is that you cannot judge all
middle class heterosexual couples by one bad case. I do not have anything
against homosexuals, and think that being so shouldn't disqualify them for
anything, but the society has deep ingrained values that will be very hard
to change. This type of news will hardly change adoption policies...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 15:04:47 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: correction
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In my last response to Carl, I inadvertently left out the line
"From Me..." which would have distinguished my comments from those
of Carl.  I rest assured that most will be able to differentiate our
lines of reasoning.

I would also like, while I'm wasting bandwidth, to mention once again that
our Mailer is *still* randomly dropping characters.  I apologize for any
misunderstandings it may cause concerning spelling abilities.

A happy new year to all.

---Robert

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
 that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
 everlasting life." John 3:16
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU