HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET (Jamie)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:46:19 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
>In article <tfilt459274@drew.edu>, Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>>>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
>
>> Because that Federal right is a right against the government.
>> Scalia says, plausibly, that OpRes cannot be conspiring to
>> deprive women of rights they hold against the government.
>
>does the law support such an argument? why would the kind of right at
>issue effect matters.  Perhaps the wording of the law, which I don't
>have?

I will provide the wording of the law below.

The rights at issue are the ones listed in the bill of rights. They
are rights people have against the goverment. They say what the
government is not allowed to do. The only way OpRes could be
conspiring to violate THOSE is by conspiring to make the government
do certain things. So Scalia was arguing.

>> O'Connor and others rest their argument on a different
>> part of the law. OpRes, she says, is deliberately rendering
>> local authorities incapable of protecting citizens. The KK law
>> was explicitly designed to bring federal authorities into the
>> scene when local authorities are overwhelmed. Scalia seems
>> to have no argument to rebut O'Connor's point.
>
>KKK.  wouldn't be the first time when Scalia did this.  New Republic
>had a piece about him that was interesting a few weeks back.

KKK? Oh, Joe is correcting my spelling! No, the law was called
the "Ku Klux Law," not the "Ku Klux Klan Law."

I am dying to read that NR article. Coincidentally, someone else
mentioned it to me this morning.

Here is the text of the law in question:

      ``If two or more persons in any State or Territory
    conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the
    premises of another, [first] for the purpose of depriving,
    either directly or indirectly, any person or class of
    persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
    privileges and immunities under the laws; or [second]
    for the purpose of preventing or hindering the consti-
    tuted authorities of any State or Territory from giving
    or securing to all persons within such State or Terri-
    tory the equal protection of the laws; . . . in any case of
    conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more
    persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any
    act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,
    whereby another is injured in his person or property, or
    deprived of having and exercising any right or priv-
    ilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so in-
    jured or deprived may have an action for the recovery
    of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,
    against any one or more of the conspirators.''  42
    U. S. C. 1985(3).

The "first" and "second" in brackets were added by Stevens (I think)
so that he could refer conveniently to the two separate provisions.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 08:15:43 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Re:Monday musings

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:03:31 EST Kerry Stephenson said:

>Hang on a minute.  What kind of UN voting are you talking about?

>In the Security Council, the US has a veto.

OK, I ask again, since neither Dave or NINAR answered
it.

In the Security Council, could one of the permanent
members simply vote no, or is EVERY no vote considered
a veto.

Maybe I am splitting hair and maybe this has no
practical importance.  But could the US vote "no" and
still not veto a resolution?

>--NINAR Kerry

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:52:44 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:43:00 EST Travis Kidd said:

>> However, if we can divide that equation TWICE by zeros we most
>> certainly should be able to divide it only ONCE.  In which case
>> we get: k=k+1 which means 0=1.
>Well, then you get 0/0 * k = 0/0 * (k + 1)--I already said that 0/0 is
>meaningless because 0/0 is anything.  But cross-multiplication still
>holds.
>>
>> --KAT
>-Travis

But there is no such thing as cross multiplication per se.
The only way to get from

         a       c
        ---  =  ---      (1)
         b       d

to

          ad = bc        (2)

is not to "cross multiply" but rather multiply both sides of (1)
by bd.  That is:


         a            c
        ---  x bd =  --- x bd
         b            d

In this case b's at the left and d's at the right can be cancelled
ONLY if b and d are not equal to zero.  (In your case they ARE
equal to zero and therefore you cannot do any "cross multiplying.")

And you get

         ad = cb       (3)

Now when you compare (1) and (3) it APPEARS that you have
cross-multiplied.

--KAT  (this is bordering tutoring and I don't think the list
        would tolerate it any longer)
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Zoe Baird
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:19 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GTYSZWVOOI00CISQ@vassar.edu>,   
      Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET> writes...
>Yes, Cary Edwards went Zoe Baird one better--he didn't *want* to be the
>Attorney General--he *was* the Attorney General when he employed an illegal
>alien.  Even more odd is his story that he wanted to pay taxes on her
>wages but the Portuguese woman told him that she was an "independent
>contractor" and therefore Edwards should not take taxes out of her pay.  So
>you have New Jersey's Attorney General trusting an illegal alien's legal
>interpretation.
> 
>I don't know what Whitman's occupation was when she employed the illegal
>aliens (she hired a married Portuguese couple for child care and as a
>driver).  As I recall, she sort of came out of nowhere when she almost
>beat Bradley.  Although she claims that the timing was coincidental, she
>and her husband sent the illegal couple back to Portugal in June 1990,
>which was while Whitman was campaigning against Bradley.  The couple
>returned in April 1991, having secured legal resident status, and resumed
>working for Whitman and her husband.  Even then, though, Whitman did not
>pay taxes on their wages from April 1991 through July 1991.
> 
>The New York Times ran comments from "ordinary citizens" yesterday and
>the comments were almost all strongly against Whitman and Edwards.  One
>of two things will happen:  With the primary just over four months away,
>all of this will be forgotten by the time people vote, or, other Republicans
>will enter the race and stand a good chance of winning since Whitman and
>Edwards have generously made these announcements with sufficient time for
>a new candidate to mount a good primary campaign.

I don't believe it.  The New Jersey Republicans may actually find a way to lose
to Florio.

							Dan, ad nauseum

P.S.  Weicker to Washington!  Let's get some results out of the administration. 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: POLITICS
X-VMS-Cc: TFENWICK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:16:00 EST
From:         "Toby Fenwick, Middlebury College" <TFENWICK@MIDD.BITNET>
Subject:      Israel, Hamas and the Explusions
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.bitnet

KAT--

        I agree that the primary reason that there is much international static
for Israel over these explusions is that there is an history of the Israelis
explelling people randomly and then taking the moral high ground in the Middle
East [not to mention the Golan Hieghts ... :) ]. But there is a price this time
in the form of the peace conference in progress from which all expect to gain
and WILL gain as long as there is an agreement on the table. The actions of the
Israelis are inexcusable under international law and the fact that they have
gotten away with it with a slap on the wrist in the UN GA is irrelevant.

Toby
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:22:37 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >
> >    uh, brett, i agree with you, except for one point. what do we do
> > while the prejudices remain? do we accept a serious, perhaps very
> > serious, loss of morale and experienced personnel to accommodate a
> > few people who demand that the protector of this nation's freedom
> > radically change to suit *them*?
>
> Yes.  What if the military brass were anti-Semites and demanded that
> Jews be excluded?
>
    being a jew is a matter of choice, not genetics. or are you saying
that being gay is as much a choice as one's religion?

> Besides, all these rumblings of mass resignations aren't arguments.
> They're blackmail.
>
   don't bet on it. if my boss made a decision that, in my opinion,
made it impossible or nearly so to carry out my duties effectively,
i'd take my pension and go home. religious conviction may play a part
in this as well.

> >   this country has an all-volunteer military. if a gay person wishes
> > to join, there is a simple way to do so; lie. lying to enter the
> > service is a long and honorable tradition. women joined the union
> > army in disguise (maybe the confederate army, too) and lots of men
> > lied about their age to enlist, my own father among them.
>
> Yes, the morally flexible often have an easier time of it in this
> world.  Do we really want to encourage that?
>
   gee, i thought it was all the rage to insist on situational ethics.
or is there a strict moral code someplace that gays follow that forbids
lying? if so, how can there be *anyone* still in the closet?

> >   it seems to me that what the advocates of overturning the ban want
> > is not toleration, but official approval of homosexuality. no thanks.
>
> Wrong.  Toleration means you don't mess with them.  It has nothing to do
> with "approval," unless one wants to redefine not beating someone to
> death (as in the case of a gay sailor last year) as approval.  Besides,
> gays are not asking for Colin Powell's approval, except on the same
> terms as everyone else in the military.
>

  silence gives assent. right?

> Best,
> Peter
>
> > rtf

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date:         21 Jan 93 10:58:40 EDT
X-Pmrqc:      1
Priority:     normal
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:58:40 EDT
From:         richard martin <NACSRWM@ACS2.ACS.NCSU.EDU>
Organization: Administrative Computing Svcs.
Subject:      Re: The good old days
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

the problem is, the people who are complaining abt clinton DON/T want
change, else they wouldn/ta voted for george herbert walker shrub
(after 8 yrs w/ a mental vegetable, america voted for a higher life
form ...)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:22:28 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re:Re:Monday musings

>  - Ramon
> P.S. As Gary discovered recently, I am involved in a deeply secret
>conspiracy to overthrow Tim's regime and subject him to a biased and
>humiliating political trial. I'll try to make it a bloody and violent coup
>d'etat so that media pundits can have a ball covering it. Any person(s)
>interested in subverting the phony democratical order of this list can
>apply. High posts and ample rewards will be given to fellow conspirators
>after I regain full dictatorial powers. Long live the dictatorship of the
>electronic proletariat!!!!

  Too late.  I've got an unknown in the government.

  The position was filled last night.  Ha!

                -Tim
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: new SC ruling
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:11:18 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <POLITICS%93012616415265@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>,         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU> writes:
 >> >even if the guy were already executed, new evidence should have its day.
 >>
 >>         New evidence, yes.  But not necessarily a claim of innocence.  Ted
 >> Bundy was claiming that at the end also.
 > 
 >And that's what the lawyers produced--new evidence that would have
 >been admissable at the original trial.  Whether any of us, as outside
 >observers, buys these stories is beside the point.  Evidence that
 >could have changed the outcome of the original trial should be ample
 >cause for a new trial.  The Court came down on the side of procedure
 >over justice.

I suppose someone will eventually post the real details of the case, but
until then I am happy enough to emulate everyone else and simply post
my opinions on what I *think* the case was about...

Was the "new evidence" unavailable at the time of the trial and the
subsequent appeals or was it simply not presented by the defense, held
in reserve, so to speak?  Perhaps there is no difference?

This may be a nit, but isn't the SC's job to review the constitutionality
of a trial rather than to act as a continuation of the trial process?

It seems to me that this is a case where the state's governor should step
in and do something.  I don't know, perhaps wave the gubenatorial hand and
grant a new trial?

						Andrew MacRae
						
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re:      bang your head
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:13:51 GMT

Does anyone know Gary's phone number?  It looks like someone
broke into his account and posted the following obvious forgery:

In article <01GTVSSZEOSG8WW29X@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU> bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET> writes:

>Better still, I'll repost it:
>>Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 08:37:43 GMT
>>From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
>>Subject:      We have a winner...
>>
>>...or seven losers, depending on how you look at it.  Thanx again to all who
>>voted, and here's the way the cookie crumbled, in reverse order:
>>
>>Candidates                           Platform                           Votes
>>
>>WATERS, J                            She's one of us.  All of us.        0
>>ALLEN, Andrew/RAFFERTY, Steve        Stetsons and the letter Y           3
>>COLE-STEELE, J E/SABOE, Linda        bEEr and the lEttEr E               3
>>SCHLEDORN, Peter/KUSMIN, Lorin       Groucho Marxism                     3
>>STEPHENSON, Kerry/KILBURN, Kerry     Beers, Shoes, etc                   3
>>
>>DUNCAN, Evelyn/SMITH, Valentine M    Steady, Consistent, Thoughtful      5
>>
>>WALES, Jimbo/LORSON, Anneliese       4 years of intermittent scandal     9
>>
>>AAAAAAAAAAAND, the winners, weighing in at 11 votes, in the Beer, Shoes, Logic,
>>Restraint corner, are:
>>
>>           ****    JOHNSON, Tim/OLSON, Gary W    ****
>

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:16:17 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: broader question
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >We have to make guns inaccessible - period.

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

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

This is what Tim misunderstood. T.'s theory is based on the removal
of the firearm. He wants to zap guns out of existance. As -andy
explains, the existance of the firearm cannot be zapped out of
existance. If we don't rely on our metal shop experience, we can
rely on the countrymen of many nations to carry one or two over the
border, or those who have passed their guns on from generations.

T. (and other gun control advocates) would do better to find ways
to short-circuit this cycle of violence rather than blame inanimate
objects.

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

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

Of course the gun will not make one "safe." Tagging the base and
watching the pitcher is all that will make one "safe." B)

Those who have the tools must learn to use them. I wouldn't run
a tractor without knowing where the break is. I wouldn't run a
belt-sander without 1) gloves or 2) something fairly big so my
knuckles don't get close.

(The standard "liberal" cry is for more "education," and I cannot
 in good conscience leave that as the total answer after being a
 high school student. I have no other answer, however)

> -andy

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchik of Dictionaries
  (and conspiracy theorist)
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:49:30 -0500
From:         "Running Through the Depths of my Mind... Searching For a
              Backdoor" <STUSTITH@EKU.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reunion on the Mall

 Now... as he said it just depends on how you look at the system... whether
the cup is half full or half empty!!


John
     ******************************************************************
     ********                                                 *********
     ********           John Stith (Freud)                    *********
     ********   Bitnet:         STUSTITH@EKU                  *********
     ********   Internet:       STUSTITH@eku.acs.eku.edu      *********
 ***************************************************************************
 ***************************************************************************
 ***    "Freedom's Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose"           ***
 ***                                             Janis Joplin            ***
 ***                                                                     ***
 ***    "We'll Give You a Fair Trial and A First Class Hanging"          ***
 ***                                 Brian Dennehey, Silverado           ***
 ***                                                                     ***
 ***    "I'd Rather Be Right Than President"                             ***
 ***                                            Henry Clay               ***
 ***************************************************************************
 ***************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:22:55 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Homosexuals in the Military

>From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>

>        While I would like to agree with this optimism, I must refer you to
>Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail."  King addresses this issue
>of patience and explains that, for groups who have been denied their rights,
>"wait" almost always means "never."  I wish I could quote the text directly (as
>a good historian would), but I don't have it hear at the office right now.

There are some debts that are a pleasure to (begin to) repay.

"For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the
ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has
almost always meant 'Never.' We must come to see, with our
distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is
justice denied.'"

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:43:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

On Fri, 15 Jan 1993 12:58:26 EST K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> Of course 0k is equal to 0(k+1).  But Travis is implying (hell, he
> is downright saying it) that we can divide both sides of this equation
> twice by 0 and get k/0=(k+1)/0.
>
> Well, I am not gonna try to explain to Travis where he went
> wrong on that one.  (Jamie did a good job but it did not help.)
>
> However, if we can divide that equation TWICE by zeros we most
> certainly should be able to divide it only ONCE.  In which case
> we get: k=k+1 which means 0=1.
Well, then you get 0/0 * k = 0/0 * (k + 1)--I already said that 0/0 is
meaningless because 0/0 is anything.  But cross-multiplication still
holds.
>
> --KAT
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:12:01 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling

Hi, Brett':
You said:
>        From what I've heard, the ruling is explicity addressing the case where
>the criminal has exhausted all other appeals, then makes a claim of innocence.
>        He originally pleaded guilty (I believe).

and previously, I had written:

>>even if the guy were already executed, new evidence should have its day.

to which you replied:
>        New evidence, yes.  But not necessarily a claim of innocence.  Ted
>Bundy was claiming that at the end also.

I think I must be missing something.  I can understand that a person cannot
just say "I'm innocent" and base an appeal on that.  But this guy claims to
have evidence (one eye-witness related to the alleged other perpetrator and
three corroborating witnesses).  Isn't that new evidence that should be
heard?

>        After all, why would anyone plead guilty *knowing* they could get the
>death sentance, and then wait until their execution was near to claim
>innocence?

How about bad legal advice from court-appointed lawyers with no criminal
experience?  It's been known to happen.  How about it took a while for new
evidence to be obtained?  I don't know that these apply in this case, of
course.  Heck, the guy could be lying through his teeth.  But to dismiss
his claims because "they're too surreal" doesn't seem very reasonable.

I guess I just worry that, in the interest of "closing loopholes" and
"streamlining the review process" (to save money), we're losing sight of
the larger issue of justice in light of human error -- how many safeguards
is enough?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU