HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:46:59 EST
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@PACEVM
From:         Cliff Brenner <VMAN@PACEVM.BITNET>
Organization: Pace University -  Academic Computing
Subject:      Re: Uncl: abortion ruling

In article <01GTS8GFH96Q9VUK7C@WVNVMS.WVNET.EDU>, KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
says:
>One thing I've been meaning to ask y'all -- has anyone got a good
>explanation for why the confirmation hearings are going so smoothly?  I
>remember Dole being very adamant about his role as "chaperone" during the
>hearings, and it sounded to me like he was going to lead some tough,
>challenging questioning.  But now he's all smiles and sunshine -- Zoe Baird
>is A-OK with him, etc.  Why the turnaround?  Any ideas?
>
>Thanks!  Later, everyone
>Kerry

I heard one theory on why there is so little Republican opposition to
Ms. Baird is that Senator Hatch (ranking minority member of the Judiciary
Committee) feels she is the best candidate (given her corporate background)
that the Republicans can expect from President Clinton.  I'm suprised her
lack of prosecutorial experience is not an issue.  It's funny how Alan
Ginsburg (Reagan candidate for Supreme Court after Bork) was immediately
disqualified after it was disclosed he smoked marijuana as a law professor,
while Ms. Baird's transgressions do not seem to be considered serious
enough to affect her image as chief law enforcement officer of the United
States.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:dunstan@gec-epl.co.uk>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:08:46 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Re:Monday musings
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu

Fred:
[stuff deleted]
>Does anyone know how the UN veto power came to exist? Would the US
>continue to belong to the UN if the entire body voted to disband the
>security council and eliminate the veto power? What criteria, aside
>from "it's our ball and if we can't pitch were gonna go home" determines
>wether a UN sanction can be eliminated by a veto, even thouth the
>majority of members support the resolution?
>
>fred

I guess it was written into the original charter. Presumably the idea
when the UN was founded was that the major players on the world stage
(USA, USSR, China, UK and France) would have some safeguard against
the rest of the world ganging up on them.

Technically any permanent security coucil member could veto any change
in the security council arrangements (I think). However, here's an
interesting precedent. To pass legislation in the United Kingdom
requires the assent of all three estates of parliament (House of
Commons, House of Lords and the Sovereign). In the early part of this
century the elected House of commons got wee'd off with the unelected
House of Lords blocking legislation, and presented legislation
requiring that when any item had been presented to the House of Lords
three times, it would be deemed approved whether the Lords had passed
it or not. Needless to say, the Lords wouldn't approve it so, on the
third presentation it was deemed passed and went to the soverign and
became law (The Parliament act of 19XX). Now, how did a piece of
legislation to take away the veto of the Lords become law when the
Lords had vetoed it ? (For those who are interested, this is the only
part of the constitution of the United Kingdom which is actually
written down).

Aside from that slightly self indulgent example, I have another
question for the list. Should the United Kingdom and France pass their
permanent membership of the security council on to, say, Japan and
Germany ? There are those within the UK who suggest that our seat on
the security council is an anachronistic relic of an imperial past,
and part of the emotional baggage which encourages us to see ourselves
as more important than we really are.

Dunstan.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: stcmille@panix.com (Steve Miller)
Subject: Re: Thurgood Marshall, rest in peace
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:25:50 GMT


Did anyone else catch the irony of Marshall dying on the same day the
court released a decision that a death row inmate couldn't bring new
evidence to bear on his innocence - as long as he got a fair trial in
the first place.

Talk about dissing the dead, they didn't even give the guy a chance to
spin in his grave!

-- 

__________________________________________________________
Steve Miller				stcmille@panix.com
		A Famous Rock Star!
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 16:01:15 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >I'll go further.  The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon. It
> >is a blatantly biased paper that most people (except Brett') totally
> >disregard.  And the Post and the Times didn't run the transcripts
> >_because_ the tapes were doctored.  The doctoring was authenticated
> >by CNN's audioligist and ABC's.
>
>         Better hold your horses there.  I merely forwarded the article from
> Usenet.
What is the relevance to this.  I didn't impune your statement, I was
just putting forth relevant information.

> >> But Clinton did not *admit* anything either (except the Mario
> >> reference and that it was basically him on the tape).  And many
> >> tape-analysts said that the tape had been "doctored"
>
>         Except that show where Hillary said she had forgiven him....
Which show was that?  What did she say that she had forgiven him for?
If you recall, Bill said on "60 Minutes" that he had "caused harm in his
marriage".  Something like that sounds like something should have been
forgiven for a marriage to continue.  But it doesn't sound anything like
"Yeh I did Gennifer but I sure am sorry now."
>
> Brett'
>
Jonathan
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 11:17:16 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling

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

Andrew Mac! Hey, things really ARE looking up.

>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...

A large chunk of the text of the opinions showed up in yesterday's
NY Times.

>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?

It was unavailable.

>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?

Absolutely. But I fail to see your point.

The Court was ruling on the Texas law that new evidence constitutes
a basis for re-opening the case ONLY until 30 days have elapsed.

Had the Court agreed with the appelant, it would have ordered
a hearing, it certainly wouldn't have ruled on the new evidence
itself.

>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?

Yeah, but he didn't.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:38:10 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      acting head's of state
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Speaking of acting head's of state, did anyone see the uproar over
Arkansas' acting governor?

        Apparently the man appointed to the job until the actual Governor
returned from the love-in in Wash. pardoned a bunch of criminals, then resigned
in favor of yet another temporary governor.

        People in Ark. are mighty peeved.  Nothing like 3 un-elected gov. to
revive respect for democracy.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
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:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:48:35 -0500
From:         Steve Rafferty <E7L8RAF@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Nanny and Zoe

> It's funny how Alan
>Ginsburg (Reagan candidate for Supreme Court after Bork) was immediately
>disqualified after it was disclosed he smoked marijuana as a law professor,

Of course, the real reason that Allen Ginsburg was rejected for appointment
to the Supreme Court is that Sandra Day O'Conner absolutely can't stand
finger cymbals and chanting.  Knowing this the other members of the
Supreme Court pressured Congress to find some way to disqualify Allen.
The rest is, as they say, history.

>while Ms. Baird's transgressions do not seem to be considered serious
>enough to affect her image as chief law enforcement officer of the United
>States.


Although I have been telling friends for the past few days that I think
Zoe Baird should withdraw her name from consideration, I was surprised
and a little disappointed to hear that she had done just that overnight.

There's a few things that bother me about the process, though.  One, is
that it is fairly clear that Congress hasn't changed (is Biden a
sanctimonious dweeb or what?).  It is my impression that the whole
illegal immigrant affair was admitted and explained in the first day
or two of the hearings.  (This does not imply, for all those relentlessly
binary minds out there, that it was no longer pertinent in terms of
confirmation.)  Yet, senator after senator kept bringing it up.
The only reason I can imagine is to keep fanning the anger of
the public to help defeat the nomination.

The other thing that bothers me is an apparent double standard.  I can't
help believing that if a man had been nominated and the same charge
was brought against him, the treatment would have been a bit different.
If that male nominee had explained that he knew the situation was
illegal but that his wife had been making the arrangements, and that
the situation had since been rectified, I believe that the senators
would have nodded their heads, and continued to any other issues
that may have been significant.

One last thing.  On CNN last night, Ann [?] , a "democratic political
consultant" made the point that, while not taking the illegal
immigrant affair lightly, a dangerous precedent continues to evolve
in US government:  one that insists that anyone who has done
anything wrong is unfit to serve in high government.  Douglas
Ginsburg is a case in point.  I really don't know anything about
his qualifications, but does anyone really believe that someone who
smoked marijuana in the past is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Also, if memory serves me, Ginsburg withdrew his nomination so
the marijuana smoking did not specifically "disqualify" him.
Probably, had we not been in such a frenzy of anti-drug hysteria
it would not have been as volatile an issue.

Recommending noon for virtual beers today,

Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:51:01 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>
> *I* don't approve of HC exercising power in the White House (I couldn't,
> however, care less that her quarters have moved to the same wing as
> the President's, though I understand the symbolic import involved).
>
> And *I'm* not a man.
>
> It's not because you're men; it's because you're *right* (in every sense
> of the word.  :-) )
>
> --NINAR Kerry
>

Just to prove how open-minded and un-chauvinistic I really am, I
nominate Kerry for President.  That way, we'll have a female
President, so the feminist liberals will be happy.  We'll have
someone who's *right*, so we won't have to use the cheap excuse of
"don't criticize her or you're a chavinist." (I'll be happy.)   And
finally, because she's *right*, the Republicans in general should be
happy.  I guess all that leaves out are liberal men, and since we're
a democracy, that's just too bad for them...  (Don't you love rule of
the majority?)

--STAN JACOBS
    With the logical solution to domestic strife...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:49:50 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
              25 Jan 1993 17:23:24 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:23:24 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>>> ........................  Every cut in the capital gains tax rate has
>>>caused an increase in the revenues.
>>>
>>>Brett'
>>
>>So would every INCREASE in the capital gains tax rate.
>>
>>--KAT
>
>        Fortunately, that's not true.  As the rate increases people stop
>selling securities, and move income into tax-free investments.  The rate
>increase in the early 70s caused a drop in revenues, then a leveling off.  It
>rebounded with the rate cut in 1978 and every year thereafter until the rate
>increase in 1986.
>
>Brett'

And as people sell securities more than they intended they would
pay higher capital gains tax and hence revenues will be enhanced.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:38:28 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Death Penalty Cases
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

    I will take the advice of some other poster to stop talking about
Zoe Baird, though any questions mailed to me will be answered since
there is few areas it seems that she has any defenders.

   The Supreme Court while having a flag at half-mast for Thurgood
Marshall (who is turning his grave esp. with one decision 5-4) went
further on their mission to decrease the chance of federal habeas
corpus relief in the area of the death penalty (and in general).
Habeas corpus is the right to have the federal courts hear alleged
constitutional violations after your final appeal in state courts.
Chief Justice Rehnquist has made it his crusade to reduce the right of
prisoners to do this, even when the Congress (who can do this) refuses
to pass the legislation he lobbied for.  And they call Warren an
activist.  He gets rather annoyed with "frivolous" appeals of death
cases -- habeaus corpus appeals in general are a rather small (10 or
under percent of the appeals) and the number of death appeals are
smaller (since their are less death cases).  Many try to get appeals
since it is after all a "death" penalty and several are of little
merit.  Such is life guys.
    Now, when the death penalty was upheld in 1976 by the SC, it was
with the priviso that "death is different" i.e. is under a much higher
test under the "cruel and unusual" standard. The idea that a hearing
is necessary with evidence (that is not extremely good) that you was
wrongly accused seems rather obviously cruel to me, but then I did support
the Zoe Baird nomination.  Chief Justice Rehnquist disagrees since in
general when you're guilty, you're guilty -- new evidence is a
factual/state matter not a federal one.  But, death is different and
possible innocence is very different, as even some of the majority
admits since they made the "extremely good" be included.  Well, when its
death, I don't think such a high and rather dubiously likely to happen
standard is necessary.  If a society wants to kill people, especially
ours with liberty of some importance, they should be damn sure they do
it right.  The fact this is so damn hard and inexact/random makes me
against the death penalty even without moral reasons.  But if you are
going to kill people, you better allow appeals, especially if
innocence is a serious possiblity.  And the fact that you may have
some frivolous appeals shouldn't lead you to abridge the right for
appeal for other constitutional reasons -- death is different as was
noted in 1976 in Greggs v. Georgia and still is.  Blackmun is right:
to deny new evidence that has a serious chance of showing innonence is
damn close to murder.  Thurgood Marshall would have been proud of him.

   -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:36:45 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Is it JSS? Is it KAT? No, it's Big Dave....

>It's like removing an unknown from a math problem: you get a wrong
>answer.

Interesting.  And if you have more than one unknown per equation,
you can't get an answer without removing some.  What a terrible
fix we are in.  To follow up, then, on this very apt model for
political behavior, this means that we can't get the right answer
if we try to reduce govt., and we can't get any answer if we
don't.

A damn shame more political philosophers weren't mathematicians.
We could have been saved a lot of fuss and bother if they had
all just thrown up their hands and quit.

But, it gives me an idea.  I need to appoint an official unknown
to my cabinet.  That way, if there is a coup attempt, they have
to throw out the unknown, and if they do that, they will be wrong.

Send your secret requests and bribes to this account to become
Cabinet Member X - long lost brother of official chauffeur
Speed Racer.  (Part of the perks - you get to take Army M-1,
Dukakis' old tank, out on the track on weekends in the
presidential demolition derby - our own way of reaching out
to the common man.  Bush had his pork-rinds.  We have Monster
Truck Madness Madness Madnesss, With An Echo Echo Echo.)

                               -Da Prez
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU:R3EJD@AKRONVM>
Return-Path: <@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU:CELTIC-L@IRLEARN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:28:34 EST
Comments:     Resent-From: Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM>
Comments:     Originally-From: CHRISTINE@MOM.SPIE.ORG
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Comments: To: words-l <WORDS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>,
          belief-l <BELIEF-L@BROWNVM.BITNET>

Come on, guys, do this for the women in your lives.  It's not her fault
your team is losing.

Evelyn

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Dear Celtic-netters:

I know that this has absolutely nothing to do with Celtic Studies,
but it something I think many women (and men too) on the net might
want to see.

Thanks, everyone!

Christine Michaud

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarded message:
>From POMONA.CLAREMONT.EDU!JRYCENGA Wed Jan 20 11:52:44 1993

For political activists, or media watchdogs, or just concerned
women, here's a quick something you can do to help prevent
and stop domestic violence.

Super Bowl Sunday - which this year is January 31, here in southern
California at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena - is the single worst day
for domestic violence in the USA.  There is an increase of as much as
40% in the volume handled by domestic violence shelters on this
day.

To try to stem this tide of violence, the Women's Action Coalition (WAC)
of Los Angeles is supporting the campaign by Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting (FAIR) to convince NBC (the network carrying the game) to carry
two Public Service Announcements on domestic violence during the
Super Bowl this year.  Anna Quindlen of the New York Times wrote a
fine editorial in the 1/17/93 edition of the Times supporting this
effort as well.

What I am asking of you - and all your friends (please PLEASE cross-post
this to _any_ lists you can think of) - is to help us with a FAX/LETTER
blitz on NBC, asking for these PSA's.  Here is a sample letter:

Dick Ebersol
President, NBC Sports
NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112

Dear Mr. Ebersol:

I would like to add my support to FAIR's request that you air two
Public Service Announcements
on domestic violence during the Super Bowl game.  The Super Bowl is one
of the most widely viewed
television events of the year; it is also the day, according to women's
shelters, when calls for help
increase by as much as 40%.

Your broadcast of the Super Bowl will reach a huge audience.  By airing
PSAs, NBC will be
bringing a national audience's attention to the critical issue of
domestic violence.

Sincerely,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:03:36 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Sears has become the first major employer to openly display its
>optimistic view of what the future holds for business, during the
>Cliha haa haa in ha haton administration.  Announced today, the end
>of the Sears catalog, the closing of approximately 113 stores and
>the unemployment of 50,000 workers.  The lucky ones, still employed,
>will be facing drastic pay cuts.
>
>I feel all better about Billy now :/
>
>---Robert

        It's too bad no one pinned Bill down to a specific unemployment number.

        Let's do a list poll:  what's your prediction for unemployment at the
end of January, 1994?

        I think it will be 8.3%

Brett'