HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Term Limits & "Encumbant Ballot Access Limits"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.140717.13812@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.045644.10843@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, 
>n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) said:
>> I don't think this can be struck down.  A state may not add new
>> requirements to become a US legislator, _but_, any state is free to
>> set its own ballot access rules with whatever arbitrary and
>> near-impossible requirements they see fit.  This new ballot access
>> law is just another such requirement.
>
>Yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court recently upheld a Hawaiian
>ballot-access law that allowed the state to simply disallow write-in
>votes and count only those votes which were cast for candidates whose
>names were printed on the ballot.  I think that that decision was
>simply wrong.  (Wouldn't be the first time.)
>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

To be fair to the Supreme Court, Hawaii's ballot access requirements
were close to minimal, and anyone who couldn't meet them had no business
running for office in the first place.  I'm against ballot access
restrictions also, but I don't think what Hawaii had could reasonably
be called a restriction.  (I'm not sure whether all parties were required
to collect the few dozen signatures or so, or just third-parties, the
former being preferable, but still...)
As for your suggestion of banning ballots and just counting write-in votes 
this is an expensive proposition.  Take a look at misspellings on the net 
(a place where I'd say the average person is of above average skills) 
sometimes, and multiply that by a factor of a millions, for each of the
three hundred or so offices one finds on a typical Cook County election
ballot.   
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61288 alt.conspiracy:12390
From: spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off...
Date: 22 Nov 1992 17:24:43 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivem.ucsd.edu
Keywords: Please pass the word. In other words: X-post this message.

In article <17NOV199215350428@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>
>{ Subj:  = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off... }
>
>Skip work or school. Take a sick day. Take part of the day off.
>Cut out early. Take a long lunch. Come in late ...whatever works for ya.
>
>..whether you go see the movie or not. 
>
>Any of the following reasons will do:
>
>1. Because you need a good excuse.
> [...]
>And my favorite:
>
>10. To worry the Government. 
>
>Did I leave anyone out?

Yeah:

11.  To make Spike Lee rich.

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Bosnia has no gun control."
			- random thought
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60381 alt.politics.clinton:17257 alt.president.clinton:467
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:46:32 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <farenebt.721921629@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy) writes:
>Actually, Foley spoke of a compromise, most vetos require a 2/3
>to override but he suggested that a lineitem veto only require
>a simple majority. Thus giving the prez power to cut pork
>no one believes in while not allowing the prez to get too partisan
>in his penstrokes.

In my view, the 50% rule *does* allow partisan pork-slashing under the
current distribution of votes.  With 2/3, some Republicans have to
be brought on board to override a veto -- precisely the problem the Dems
were having with Bush's vetoes -- and the distribution in Congress is no
more favorable for the Dems than before.  With 50%, the Dems themselves
can push through their pork if they want to.
-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	U.S. National Debt: $4,135,550,811,824
	Your Share: $16,169
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Please do NOT crosspost to ne.politics
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:33:24 GMT
Followup-To: don't
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

ne.politics means "New England Politics".  That can be
either of two things:

   a) Postings by anyone on political topics specific to New England
   b) Postings by New England people on political topics

Much of the traffic that is being cross-posted into our
group falls into neither category.

Please don't crosspost from talk.politics.misc into ne.politics.
Thanks.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Pat Schroeder on Term Limits
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:09:31 GMT


In article <QLG=vJ#@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu said:

> One reason that I am in favor of term limits on a national level is
> to break up the pockets of power created by the Congressional
> seniority system.  Creating locally contestable races is only of
> secondary importance.  The problem with the seniority system is that
> it is a creation of Congress and you aren't likely to find members
> voting to change it.  It will take an outside force and I think term
> limits is an appropriate method.

It looks to me like you're going around three sides of a square
instead of traveling in a straight line.  If the reformation or
abolition of the seniority system is your goal, why not agitate and
work for the passage of legislation (or a constitutional amendment)
that would do that directly?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg")
Subject: Re: Why Bother? (Re: FUCK CLINTON, etc.)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:36:15 GMT

In article <1ejvf5INN2fj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>>for blowjobs in Georgia, playing with passport files for political
>>gain, selling weapons illegally to tyrants the world over -- it's
>>the *Secret Service*, the guys in the ugly sunglasses who try
>>to make sure our political successions don't happen like those
>>in Liberia or Colombia, that you want to whine about?!!
>
>
>      i)  You missed the point of the posting
>
>      ii) You may think you're "older and wiser", but I think not.
>
>      iii) You need to read up on the CIA involvement in Columbia
>           Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, before making such assertions.


  1) I don't think I missed the point.  2) I'm 31 years old, and make no
special claims about wisdom.  Finally, I don't understand why you're
bringing up the CIA when I was defending the Secret Service, and
in particular its role in protecting the President.  I am well aware
of CIA abuses in the countries you mention, as well as several
others.  Only the most ideologically blindered right-wingers
try to deny the role the CIA has played in subverting democratic
movements, assassinating labor leaders, politicians, and human rights
activists, and installing, bankrolling, and protecting viciously
tyrannical governments throughout the developing world.  But, likewise,
the most frothing irrational leftists seem to be unable to distinguish
between the abuses in the almost-unmonitored military/intelligence
apparatus allowed and encouraged by Republican administrations versus
the legitimate US governmental institutions which are worth defending.

  In other words, it is all too easy to look at the actions of
scum like Casey, Elliot Abrams, Poindexter, John Negroponte,
etc. and throw up your hands and say "our entire f***ing society and
government are corrupt and evil beyond redemption and Bush and Clinton
and any other president are all scum and unworthy of protection and
the Secret Service is really just the Gestapo in more boring
uniforms".  It's the lazy way out.  The apparatus and tools of government
and national security are not *inherently* evil -- they have been
abused savagely during the last 45 years (to say the least), but
let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

  -- Evan



-- 

Evan W. Steeg (416) 978-5182      steeg@ai.toronto.edu (CSnet,UUCP,Bitnet)
Dept of Computer Science          steeg@ai.utoronto    (other Bitnet)
University of Toronto,            steeg@ai.toronto.cdn (EAN X.400)
Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4           {seismo,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!steeg
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:51:15 GMT

In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

Regarding California law:

>...
>
>1. Oral sex or sodomy between a 27 year old and a 17 year old, or 26 
>year old and a 16 year is legal, but intercourse is not.
>
>2. Oral sex or sodomy is only a misdemeanor between a 24 year old
>and a 14 year old.
>
>The law is not gender specific -- but it's clear that by making
>sexual intercourse illegal for a girl under 18, but sodomy and
>oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
>protect the interests of the homosexual community.
>-- 

This statement is self contradictory.  If the law differentiates between 
males and females then it certainly is gender specific.

IF the differentiation is between male and female VICTIMS only, and not
between perpetrators, then it would seem to be aimed at providing greater
'protection' for females from older perpetrators of BOTH sexes.

Still reprehensible, but not in the manner you imply.  Wouldn't the law
prevent prosecution of a female, age 26, for having oral sex or sodomy 
with a male age 16, and make it only a misdemenor between a female age
24 and a male age 14?  I.e. doesn't the law serve to protect the interests
of predatory persons of both sexes, provided that they select males for 
victimization?

Isn't sodomy a term broad enough to cover a variety of acts both homo
and hetero sexual?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61410 sci.econ:8817
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Keynes and holes in the ground.
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:19:09 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov22.053350.6916@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
...[Keynes bottles of banknotes story]...
> Is it me, or do you think Bret missed the point because Keynes didn't
> add a smiley?  My impression from reading this is that Keynes was making
> fun of the objections of gold bugs to paper money rather than making
> a serious proposal.

	It's pretty clear he was talking about the role of government spending
as "productive investment" by making an analogy to gold mines.  Government
spending is the creation of the gold mine for business to go and dig up.
	But then someone could post the surrounding context of Keynes work to
see if there are any smileys around :).

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Anita's popularity vs. credibility
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:37:02 GMT


In article <1992Nov13.195149.58721@uvmark.uucp>, 
scholl@uvmark.uucp (Kathryn Scholl) said:

> I have a question with all of this net-hypothesizing about whether
> or not Anita Hill would be named to the S.C.
> 
> I mean, if all this Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill brouhaha didn't come
> about, would she actually have been even considered?  Or would any
> of you SC-nominee-watchers have even suggested her (or even know of
> her?)
> 
> I'm just wondering if her being in the 'victim-spotlight' has turned
> her into some sort of automatic potential nominee.

All true, and all a large part of the reason that all this is nothing
more than idle net-hypothesizing; don't expect her to be a Supreme
Court nominee any time this century.  (I won't make any lifetime
predictions because it's impossible to predict what she, or any other
American, may eventually accomplish and become qualified for.)

Point of Inflammation: Would Clarence Thomas actually have even been
considered if not for the fact that both he and the retiring Justice
whose seat was open happened to have the same relatively high levels
of melanin in their skins?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.economics
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: US Savings Bonds
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:58:00 GMT

{ From soc.veterans "AF News..." }

In article <9211170336.AA29759@afnews.pa.af.mil>...

>878.  Bond increase
>     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The semiannual market-based rate for U.S. Savings
>Bonds, in effect from November through April, has been set a 5.04 percent, the
>Treasury Department said.
>     The new rate, down from the 5.58 percent semiannual rate of the May
>through October period, reflects the general decline in market interest rates
>over the past year.  However, the guaranteed minimum rate set in Nov. 1986
>remains at 6 percent, Treasury officials said.
>     The new 5.04 rate is 85 percent of the average market yield during the
>preceding six months on Treasury marketable securities with five years
>remaining to maturity.
>     The savings bond semiannual rate is changed each May 1 and November 1.
>As of September 30, the total value of savings bonds held by the public was
>$150.321 billion, an increase of 11 percent over holdings of $135.366 billion
>a year earlier.
>     Current rates and other bond information can be obtained toll-free by
>calling 1-800-4US BOND.


Buy Bonds and help pay your own interest, 
through investment income and payroll taxes.
It's the right thing to do.
It's the right thing to dooooo.

-= A Public Service Announcement from your Internal Investment Service =-
From: Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less?
X-Xxdate: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14: 43:05 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: tnb1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:39:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov14.002448.8072@unlv.edu> Edward Crawford,
edcrwfrd@unlv.edu writes:
>The around 68 cent figure is accurate But.... If you compare women
>and men with equal jobs when get paid from 95-100% of what men do.

In biological science research, where there are quite a lot of women, the
pay is typically around 80% of men's for equivalent positions.   The
positions that do not lead to promotion are also disproportionately
filled by women.  Neither of these inequlities can be explained by lack
of experienced women in the field.

Biology is the science that tends to treat women the best.  If this is
the best, there is still a lot of room for improvement.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats.d
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation and other leftist myths 
Summary: Point/Counterpoint
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:36:55 GMT

In article <11462@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)              writes...
>In <1992Nov20.211820.6977@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALL HERE) writes:
>|>In article <BxyExr.4I1@lincoln.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                         writes...
>|>>There is no overpopulation problem. 
>|>>People are nowhere starving as a result of overpopulation. On the
>|>>contrary, increasing population is the key commerce and human
>|>>advancement, generally.
> 
>|>I'm sure that all those countries in Africa will be glad to hear that.
> 
>Excuse me, but nobody is denying that there is starvation in Africa.  But
>to claim that such starvation is the result of overpopulation is a bit of
>a stretch.  If there were only 100 people in Somalia, they would still be
>starving.  (Assuming no outside aid of course.)
> 
(If there were only 100 people they would all be dead by the end of the
day at the rate they are dying. But that's besides the point)
In Somalia's case you are correct. But what about the people that are
starving, and have been starving for who knows how long, in India?
This is not a country that is being torn apart by war (only a small part
is there actually some killing going on), and has over 700 million people
in a largely desert country.

>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot,alt.president.clinton
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: A Means To Help Keep Change In Check
XXXDate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:35:25 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A732B63D04020642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:39:23 GMT

In article <1egujqINNnss@gilligan.East.Sun.COM> Mike Roncadori,
mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM writes:
>It strikes me that most of the people who champion the cause
>of gun control are the same people who are kind of liberal
>on most issues, and seem to lean toward the liberal mindset.
>Except for this issue, where they want the govt to step in,
>and tell us all what's best.
>
>On the other hand, it seems to me that most anti gun control
>folks tend to be conservative on other issues, such as abort
>ion. They want government control, except where the issue of
>guns is concerned. These folks want us to decide for oursel
>ves about whether or not to have a gun, but not about other
>pressing societal isssues.
>
>I just thought it was kind of interesting...

Hmm, I guess I am a wierd sort of conservative. I don't want the
government to regulate businesses, I don't want the government
to take my guns, and I don't want the government to use my money
to open/operate abortion clinics. I just don't want the government
around for much of anything.

Before anyone goes off halfcocked :) I do want the government to
handle a couple of things: National Defense (I can't afford tanks
and such things myself), and a national road system. There are a few
other things they might as well do since they are taking my money,
but most of it they do so badly anyway that I can live without
it.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60581 alt.rush-limbaugh:9879
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Nov16.172925.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>, steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>>   A couple of otherwise "conservative" readers assert their belief
>> in term limitations: 
>> 
>
>[Summary -- Rep. Patricia Schroeder: "If you like term limits, then 
> move to Mexico." -- cdp] 
>       
>>   Perhaps I've missed the definitive television, print, or usenet
>> argument for term limitations, but I remain unconvinced as to
>> its merits as well as surprised that so many "conservatives"
>> are backing it.
>

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the main argument for term
limits has to do with the way in which today's money-driven politics
has made it almost impossible to compete effectively with well-financed
incumbents. Many incumbents run unchallenged, or opposed only by
'fringe', single-issue candidates who are usually not plausible
replacements for the incumbent.

This means that voters have no way to get rid of an incumbent that they
might want to retire. You can't vote people out of office, you can only
vote someone else in, and when there is no 'someone else', the incumbent
will stay by default.

Other efforts to 'level the playing field' have proven either ineffective,
unenforceable, or unconstitutional.

>     It's not being backed by conservatives only -- otherwise, it
>wouldn't have passed in every state (which had it on the ballot).
>

>     Oh, the proverbial "slippery slope" argument.  Look, if one
>really loves one's representative, one should encourage him/her to 
>run for the Senate when his/her limit expires.
>
>     C. Perttunen


One question about term limits as commonly understood: does this refer
only to consecutive terms, or cumulative terms generally? Can someone
be forced out by a term limit, sit out a term or two, then run again?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: buckmr@vccsouth14.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: How was it worded?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:11:07 GMT

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

>In article <1992Nov21.174754.11952@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom) writes:
>>What was the wording on the ballot in Colorado?  Does anybody who voted on the  
>>Colorado ballot recall basically how it went?  (I ask because I have heard that  
>>it had a pretty severe slant, but perhaps I am wrong)
>>
>Funny, I heard just the opposite.  I heard that all of the "Murder of
>Homosexuals is now legal, etc, etc." was all horse hockey that was
>extrapolated out of the original wording to increase the uproar.

>What is the true story?

It amends the state of Colorado's constitution so that no non-discrimination
ordinance in the state can include sexual orientation as a protected class.

-- 
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority 
receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush