HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:21:50 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe

>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.

These sort of accusations get tossed about all the time.
Do you have an example in mind?  I suppose I can think
of one:  Barney Frank.  The whole prostitution ring in
his basement was dismissed when he asserted that it was
his friend (of unclear personal and professional relation)
who had been running the business, not Barney himself.

Clarence Thomas's acts of indiscretion were, on the other hand,
loudly trumpeted by the press, and the committee lusted after
each lurid detail; but in the end, they ignored the whole business,
apart from fidgeting as their trousers got uncomfortably tight.

Still, neither of these incidents really is properly analogous.
Maybe you have something else in mind?

>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.

There is a difference, I think, between confirming someone who has
had some indiscretion in their past and confirming someone who has
violated INS regulations to a position overseeing the INS.  In Zoe's
case we aren't talking about outstanding parking tickets, but a
premeditated violation of laws directly related to the position to
which she was nominated.

                          -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:06:02 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Classic Conservative Stand
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>if clinton wants people to do things for themselves and get involved
>in things, then he should get government out of the way and let
>them do it.  we don't need more government we need less. Free
>the american worker and the results will astound you.  and then we'll hear
>the liberals bitching about the immorality of a society that makes
>people rich instead of making them poor.

Whew,what a statement... Free the American Worker!  Free them from what?
Worrying about ever having enough money to make ends meet by freezing
the minimum wage so their employers can maintain higher profit margins?
Or how about freeing them from the worry of retirement by lowering
work-place safety regulations?  Who's going to have the chance to retire
if they merely kick off on the job?  Or are chronically ill because of the
new and wonderful chemicals they'll get to be exposed to?  Of course, the
newly freed and poisoned worker won't have to worry about filling out
all those nasty hospital forms, because the freed worker won't have the
necessary insurance to even get through the door.
What a big, bright wonderful future!  Or, is it the past(circa 1910)?

                                                Travelr...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:16:01 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Logic Czar pokes his head in, briefly

Well, I am mightily disappointed.

My new playmate, PS, seemed so promising. He even went and looked up a
case in defense of his surprising view about "unworkable laws."
But, when I sent a gentle explanation of why he was completely wrong, he
"pulled a Brett" (decided not to play anymore).

I'm stuck discussing word meanings with Caius, a barren enterprise. In
fact, it has wakened me from my dogmatic slumber and spurred me finally
to appoint the new Dictionary Apparatchik of the Politics List.
This appointment will mark also an indefinite absence on my part,
probably interrupted sporadically when Logic's Commandments
are broken.

Let me say first off that there were many extremely qualified
applicants. Any one of them would make a fine apparatchik of
dictionnaire. I had a very hard time making my appointment.

J C Steele was certainly a front runner. I only ruled her out for
embarassing political reasons (my only other appointee is a woman, and I
hate to have conservatives breathing down my neck; more important, my
wife is getting suspcious because I insisted that we name our
second-born after Jenna). So she was a victim of circumstance.

Val was the first applicant, and I hoped (in vain) that he would be the
only one, making my choice very easy. But I'm not naming him, because he
already has a post in the Virtual Bureaucracy as an Undersecretary of
History. Also, I would feel a pang of conscience further burdening him
with a wordy job.

KAT made a good case for himself. But he didn't seem really enthusiastic
about the job (probably to his credit), and he just lacks ambition, you
know.

O'Andy seemed almost an ideal choice. And he racked up big points for
being the ONLY candidate who corrected the solecism in the original
classified ad for the job. (I decline to embarass myself by pointing out
my own mistake. O'Andy was very gracious about it--he didn't even say
explicitly that I erred, he just spelled the word right himself.) But he
since procured another sinecure for himself, and I don't want to
overburden the civil servants.

That leaves Big Dave Jacoby, he of lexicon fame. Appropriate, I think,
for the man known far and wide and all over this great land of ours for
the size of his dictionary to be the keeper of the Holy Political Word.

So I name Dave as the new Dictionary Apparatchik.

The others, I thank for their interest, and I hope they will continue
their vigil.


Jamie, the Logic Czar
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:39:51 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The good old days
              27 Jan 1993 10:31:02 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

>    Reagan and Bush are not joined at the head (no jokes about null
> connectors :).

Yes they were.  And there was only one brain to be divided
among the two.

--KAT :-)
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, 25 Jan 1993 17:56:00 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: Furtherance of a discussion ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Jan 23, 93 2:38 pm

Titivillus pisze:

>> Caius, you are meaningless. Even if the Nazis of our past were
>> Leftists, the Nazis of our present, who are killing gastarbeiten
>> in Germany, paki-bashing in England and trying to march through
>> Jewish communities in America, associate themselves with the
>> Right, even if that is a violation of their intellectual Roots.
>> (Which I do not believe)

I am not sure if they have ANY political programme, except hate to those they
hate. (not only foreigners, last news from Germany said something about Nazis
killing a blind German, because they considerd him of no value to the society)

If they call themselves Neo-nazi I can only assume they have simmilar view to
the original (historical) nazis.

No, i don't agree THEY associate themselves with the Right. Perhaps they don't
know what "Right" means. Do they? DO WE?

Besides I don't think they any *INTELECTUAL* roots.

The association is a product of the Leftists who want to discredit the rightist
solutions by associating them with the Nazis and murderers. And the journalists
repeat that stupid propaganda. (stupid but working)

>> Dave
>> t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
>>

Caius
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 10:08:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
              26 Jan 1993 09:10:40 -0500 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU>

I would like to see the wisdom of the recent SC ruling
after a state decides to have capital punishment AND
not to give the governor the right to pardon.  (Or
would that in and of itself be unconstitutional?)

Who has the pardon power in DC: the DC mayor, the US
president, or....?

--KAT   Next time I publish a scientific fact I would
        give 30 days for any "new evidence."  Under
        that procedure earth would be flat now.  Well,
        maybe, according to those Justices earth IS
        flat.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:29:01 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
              26 Jan 1993 14:47:56 PDT from <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>

Stan:

I have to agree with you that undergrad school is a horrendous waste of
time and money.  Unfortunately, having been in (not quite through yet)
graduate school as well, I have to say the same for it.

I hope law school is more useful and less detached from reality.
However, I would tend to doubt it.  Good luck, though.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:48:49 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Zoe Baird

>>Not only did Christine Todd Whitman, the person who almost beat Bill
>>Bradley in 1990, confess to having employed two illegal aliens for almost
>>four years (and she did not pay taxes on them), but her expected opponent
>>in the G.O.P. gubernatorial primary, Cary Edwards has also admitted
>>that he had employed an illegal alien for about 18 months while he was
>>the Attorney General of New Jersey (and did not pay taxes either).
>>
>
>Of course, the above example happened while Edwards _was_ Attorney General...
>what was Whitman's employ during the time she hired the aliens?
>
>If while in public office, and it does't get the outcry Baird did, .......
>
>-T.


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.


...Rick
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 11:06:34 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: and another thing

>From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Jamie:
>
>But all disadvantages are subject to constitutional challenge.  The
>question is, under what standard?

No no, that's NOT the only question.

The law disadvantages (ugh, sorry for the verbification) murderers.
That disadvantage is subject to NO challenge.

You are right that as a practical matter, the level of scrutiny
is very important. Myself, I think the current standards for
level of scrutiny are merely pragmatic, though.

Here is my interpretation.

Because of our nation's history, classification by race is esp.
suspect. The Court thinks it is especially likely to be an
invidious classification. That is not intrinsic to racial
classification; it is because of historical circumstance.

There are some classifications which ARE intrinsically invidious.
They are the ones based on prejudice or bigotry. Sex is one,
religion is another, and so on, but "murderer" is not one.

"Woman-seeking-abortion" is not one, either, in my opinion.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:58:59 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform

>Was any timetable given as to when a report would be issued? I don't
>quite understand why another study is needed, it seems dozens have been
>done by a variety of groups. Wasn't Clinton going to move in the first
>100 days on this issue? Not that I'm unhappy he's slowing down....
>
>- David
>
>David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet


It's not another study and Hillary isn't writing it alone.  Clinton has
appointed her to chair a task force that will draft the legislation which
is to be submitted to Congress by June.

Other members of the task force are Carol Rasco, Ira Magaziner, Judy
Feder, Lloyd Bentsen, Les Aspin, Ron Brown, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala,
Jesse Brown, Leon Panetta, Robert Rubin, and Laura Tyson.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:44:37 EST
From:         Daniel David Benson <bensonda@STUDENT.MSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> Hiya:
> Brett' wrote:
>
> >        It's too bad no one pinned Bill down to a specific unemployment numbe
r.
> >
> >        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%
>
> Can I use a random number generator?  I don't know nothin' 'bout economics
> :)  Seriously -- whichever way the numbers go, what kinds of evidence can
> we legitimately use to decide who's to blame (or who's to cheer)?  Honest
> question -- I suspect Clinton didn't have a whole lot to do with Sears
> stores closing (didn't they just get hit with a price-fixing bust?).  On
> the other hand, if unemployment goes down, I wouldn't know where to begin
> to look for evidence that he was responsible for that.
>
> Help?
> Kerry
>
That's a tough one. It will depend a lot on the monetary policy the Fed goes
with from this point along with the global economic climate (remember Japan
and its little "problem" with it's own economy?).  It would almost be easier to
predict the weather for January 25th 1994.

-Dan
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 12:06:08 EST
From:         MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

On Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:27:18 EST Kerry Stephenson said:

>Only women are sidewalk counselors.  Sidewalk counselors are women
>exercising the right of free speech.

First, I am at loss why you say ONLY women are side
walk counselors -- not that it is germane to my
argument, but I thought to mention it.

Second, I acknowledge that it is your right to go
around, say public parks, and say abortion is murder.
However, I am not sure whether you have a
constitutional right to get close to my face and call
me a murderer, repeatedly and systematically.

Third, it is not only "free speech" that these women
engage in.  They block, shove, and otherwise engage in
physical activities.

>Problem:  women-seeking-abortions versus women-exercising-right-
>of-free-speech.  Who wins?

The latter could speak their peace in public places and
the former could seek abortions in clinics.

The real problem is that the latter wants to physically
prevent the former to seek abortions.

>--NINAR Kerry

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:02:42 -0500
From:         Ude Eko <udeeko@GRITS.VALDOSTA.PEACHNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says
Comments: To: politics@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:50:22 EST  K=A*T said:

>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".

Funny.  This looks like the waffling we have gotten used to since
November, 1991.  If Clinton takes responsibility for the "Mario" part,
then for SPOTTY THE OWL'S SAKE he should just come out of the closet and
admit everything!  If the tape was doctored, as the tape-analysts
postulated, then who was the masculine voice we all heard on the tape?
Maybe this is just another of Elvis' apperances, to be able to claim
responsibility for a part of the tape, and yet not come clean that it was
he....

Ude Eko (udeeko@grits.valdosta.peachnet.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:18:56 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Nanny and Zoe
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> In article <POLITICS%93012212415509@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
>     Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes...
> >There is a difference, I think, between confirming someone who has
> >had some indiscretion in their past and confirming someone who has
> >violated INS regulations to a position overseeing the INS.  In Zoe's
> >case we aren't talking about outstanding parking tickets, but a
> >premeditated violation of laws directly related to the position to
> >which she was nominated.
>
> What we have here is a case of a woman being forced out of a job opportunity
> because she couldn't find decent child care.  Being from Connecticut and
> hearing some of the horror stories of family friends, I believe that.
No.  That's not the reason.

>
> That said, there is NO excuse for the Attorney General of the United States in
> claiming that they received bad legal advice.
Ms. Baird said categorically that she knew that she was breaking the law.
That's the reason that she couldn't get the AG slot.

>
>                                                         Dan, ad nauseum
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:16:00 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
              27 Jan 1993 13:18:43 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

Brett':

Watch it.

Offering evidence of pre-natal cognition is a theological argument
and, therefore, unacceptable in this forum.

--NINAR Kerry
   (Just trying to obey the rules)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:50:29 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >A question for the 90's:
> >
> >What if they gave a war and nobody would televise it?
> >-other Andy
>
>         I imagine the generals would love it.
>
I know that this subject has gotten further down the road, but I'm
trying to catch up on my mail, so hang in there!
This is what happened in the Persian Gulf war.  Nobody got to televise
anything.  You bet the general's loved it.  But the people of this country
got no info.  Even at this date, we have really no idea how many Iraquis
died at the hands of _our_ military.  I wouldn't mind knowing about many
Kuwaitis died from Iraqi's military.  Why is this info withheld?
> Brett'
>
Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:19:09 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: "czar" lose happy pill ?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Oooo-MEEster Ruckman is preparing an assault... Well now, it looks
like all us little folk better batten down the hatches and adapt our feeble
minds to the coming bright light of logic...
        Brief hint, though:  Never tip your hand too quick, because too often
you turn a good bluff into a red face...

                                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:54:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Addiction as Disease

On Fri, 15 Jan 1993 21:04:00 EDT CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET said:
> "We admitted we were powerless over our addiction..."
>
> The _addiction_ they were powerless over.  Recovery is something they have
> the strength to do...with _or_ without a "higher power".
What is the difference between being powerless over addiction and
powerless over recovery?  It seems to me that it is the same thing.

> If you'd simply read some 12 step literature, you'd see that the concept
> of a "higher power" is:
>         A.  Personal, not shared among the group
>         B.  Not part of program as recovery
>         C.  Not mandated for members to believe in
Then what is it there for?
> -T.
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU