HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:49:44 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>To the Nazis, "Genetic Cleansing" (Sp?) was a good cause. The
>ends do not justify the means, except under certain occasions (waffle).

I prefer "the means, not the intentions, produce the ends."

>They are called "hunters" or "fishers."
>
>However, in defining the problems, in crafting solutions and in the
>lead of making these things issues, the self-same environmental
>activists are driving forces.

Nope.  They weren't even around when things got going.  (Rather, the
only activists then were hunters/fishers.)  Even today, they're
largely "noise" when it comes to habitat.  We have migratory birds
because we have hunters.

>>Yes.  LA was known as a "smoky" basin before there were cars.  Nature
>>isn't benign.
>
>Well, that was from cooking fires. The sky was smoggy when the first
>Conquistadores came up the coast.

There weren't enough Native Americans in CA for that to have been significant.

>>Since he's advocating "self-censorship" of anything other than
>>horror stories....
>
>He may be painting everything darker than it is, but then again,
>the truth may not always be such a great motivator.

Fine.  However, if you're going to claim a "we don't lie" high ground
(or even "he lies, support us"), you have to abandon it to be "a great
motivator".  What was it I've been hearing about Democrats making the
hard choices?  (Sure, the Repubs may not be any different; what was it
I wrote about the Demos trying to become their caricature of
Repubs....)

>Which means decreasing the total population, which means voluntarily
>decreasing family size (or nothing short of total war for all people
>on earth), which is not much of a problem in the US but is vital
>for the third world.

Disease/famine also reduces population.  Both appear to be more
effective than Communism and/or war in that respect.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:40:37 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Jamie on the Environment, or at least curious about it

>>>From:        Pam Leader, if I remember correctly
>>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
>From:          Jamie

>Amidst the latest flurry, a couple of puzzling remarks.

>>>> Democrats are behaving like their caricature of Republicans; now we
>>>> know why.

>Why?

So they can get into the Oval Office.

>>> I think the environment is the most important issue.
>>
>>Really?  How many hunting licenses and tags has Leader bought?  (Hint:
>>a "0" response demonstrates that "think" doesn't translate to action.)

>Please explain.

Hunting and fishing licenses and other user fees are used directly for
wildlife conservation and other "Sierra Club"-style environmental
concerns.

>Are you saying that anyone who has not owned a hunting license couldn't
>be acting on a concern for the environment?

That seems to be his point. I agree that those who do own licenses have
some concern, but I still think there are other ways of showing concern.

>I wonder how many hunting licenses Jacques Cousteau has.

Good point.

Dave, the list's One True Protector of the Environment (tm)
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Anyone can become ANGRY. That is easy. But to be angry with the
right person, to the right degree, at the right time, foir the right
purpose and in the right way - that is not easy.
              --Aristotle

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:57:13 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Rises

>From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
>
>I'm quite surprised to find that nobody has commented this morning about
>the latest CBS/NEW YORK TIMES poll, showing Clinton/Gore with a 16% lead...
>55% to 39%.  As one wag put it, "Everyone was impressed with Bush
>on Thursday, then over the weekend they realized he'd said nothing new."

No one? *I* commented on it.
Links have been a bit slow, probably you didn't see my post.

Jamie
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: meaningless phrases
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <POLITICS%92083112545116@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes...
>linda:
> 
>Instead of becoming a vegetarian, you should have just sued your mother.
> 
>After all, this is America.
> 
>--Missy P 2 B

	Oh Hillary, oh Hillary...
	let loose the legal artillery...
	and let us sue mom and pa
	as we would any illicit lout
	for making us eat rainbow trout

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:50:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases

> "It tastes like chicken".


here's a good one my mom was in the habit of saying:

"this turned out wonderful, doesn't taste like fish at all."

i once said, "but ma, why don't you want it to taste like what it is?"

then she hit me.

and people wonder why i'm a vegetarian. hmmph.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:57:48 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape; violation, sex or whatever...

> This society has lost all semblance of decency, morality and compassion.  The
> sooner someone flushes this toilet the better!
> ---Robert

  So that Evil People, like us, can go to the party in
the septic tank, while the good people like you can
be sucked up the exhaust fan to heaven.

                                       -T
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:21:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re: my last word on this EVER

Me:
>>Also, I might include the general right
>>to live in peace without fear of the government, qualifying it by
>>emphasizing "general."--i.e. not in every case.
Jamie:
> That sounds better, to me.
> So, for example, women being able to live in peace without fearing
> that the government might prevent them from having abortions.
1) Do you think that prohibition of abortion is an interference in
   a woman's day-to-day life?  I don't think *any* women are that
   promiscuous...
2) This is why I said I "might" include...because it can be taken out
   of hand very easily.  There is a line which people must agree on.

        1a)the point, travis, is that a woman does not have to have
        sex every day in order for this to affect her every day life.
        a woman can get pregnant *the first time* she has sex (yes,
        you heard it here first).  if abortion is illegalized, then
        it certainly affects her every day that she doesn't go to
        school and get that higher education because she's taking care
        of the child, every day that she works some shit job because
        she missed that promotion because whe was out having a kid,
        etc, etc etc for the next 18 years and 9 months, minimum.

Me:
>>If you believe that abortion is not murder, and that you should be
>>allowed to choose to abort, then if I believe that rape is not a vio-
>>lation of one's body, then I should be allowed to choose to rape.
Jamie:
> Er, that doesn't exactly follow. Could you explain the reasoning
> more explicitly?
Well, exchange "you", "abortion", and "murder" in the first part with
"I", "rape", and "violation" in the second part.  Pretty clear to me.

> Jamie
-Travis

        clarity for travis is indeed an interesting topic for
        a paper.  too bad i didn't go into psych.  i might have
        my dissertation.

        brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:51:56 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Using deadly force against dead horses

>From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>

>I find it interesting that people are concerned about Joe Blow blowing
>away a burglar going for Joe's TV in Joe's "castle", but few blink at
>armed armored car and bank guards.  Said guards don't have guns to
>protect themselves so much as they have guns to raise the stakes of
>robbery, much of which consists of making said protection necessary.
>This is seen as a good thing.

I find this interesting too, now that you mention it.
We seem to take for granted that professional armed guards
have a proper para-police function.
Is it because we trust Brinks guards? Or is it because we
just don't think about it critically?

Our government, and I suppose any government, claims for itself
a virtual monopoly on the use of force. It gives back some of
its claim, for example, for purposes of self-defense. As far
as I know it doesn't give back any extra to Pinkerton. But
maybe we think of uniformed guards as quasi-state organs.

>It appears that some property is more equal than others.

But we already knew that, didn't we?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:57:22 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness
              3 Sep 1992 12:19:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

Richard:

How do numbers fit into all of this?  If one person in a society does
not share the desire of the majority for him to be killed (for
entertainment, enjoyment, and because they have no aversion to his
death and in fact believe that he would be better off dead), is it
"good" to kill him anyway?  How many must have an aversion to something
for that thing to be not "good" anymore?  What is the cutpoint here
at which society changes its views of "good" and "bad"?  And who sits
around calculating all the aversions and figuring out the needs and
desires of society, and makes the rules?  Some philosopher?

--Missy P 2 B
From: T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET (The Truth (some assembly required))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Gore on the Environment
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:48:21 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Not that I don't appreciate that aid to opposition research you
posted, jimbo, but isn't it SOP to ask before posting something
that huge?

Dave
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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, 27 Aug 1992 09:24:26 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      child care tax credit

Peter nudged me, so this is his fault :)
My basic take on the child care tax credit is that it doesn't seem, to me,
to do a whole lot of good in making care accessible and affordable.  To
explain why, let me point out some things about how it works (all info
coming from my 1991 form 2441).

Basically, the tax credit is a percentage of the amount you spent on child
care.  The percentage you can claim is calculated from your income:  folks
making $10K or less get 30%, folks making 28K or above (no upper limit) get
20%.   Oh, yeah -- the "amount earned" is from line 32 on your 1040 :)

Now, another thing you need to know is that you don't necessarily get a
credit based on your *total* child care cost.  If you have one child, your
maximum eligible expenses are $2400.  As a point of reference, $2400 works
out to $48 per week for 50 weeks (I'm assuming everyone takes their kids
out for the mandatory 2-week vacation).  If full-time care in your area
costs more than that, tough (and really good day-cares can run $60-$75 per
week).  If you have two or more kids, your maximum eligible expense is
$4800.  Thus, if you have three kids, you don't necessarily get a credit
for the care of the third kid.

When you plug the numbers in, then, you can see that the maximum tax credit
would be $1,440 (30% of $4800).  Of course, that's for someone earning $10K
or less and paying for the care of two or more kids.  Does that help?  I
don't know how *anyone* can spend out almost half of their annual income
for child care; I don't see how a 30% credit helps, especially because you
don't get the credit until *after* you've laid out the initial cost.

In 1991, I received a $218 tax credit for child care (23% of my total
expenditure).  Although that's not a trivial amount of money, it has no
effect on my ability to afford care -- it amounts to about $5.00 per week,
or 5/7 of one afternoon's cost.  It didn't help any more when I was earning
less and paying more.

The Bush administration (and maybe even other folks) have said that this
tax credit "empowers" parents by helping them afford child care and
allowing them to choose how to spend their child care dollars.  I won't say
it isn't a nice gesture.  But it certainly isn't the total solution.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
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:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:59:09 -0500
From:         ANTHLAL@UMNACVX.BITNET
Subject:      circumlocution

jamie:
try to think of it this way:  robert, carl, et al. are practitioners of socratic
    irony.  in the kierkegaardian sense.  saves you a lot of grief if you do.

                             * * *anneliese "biting my tongue in half" l.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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, 1 Sep 1992 08:49:31 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy:
>On the federal level, look at the receipts from the various licensing
>programs (migratory bird stamps is the big category that I know of)
>and the recipts from the excise tax on guns and gun stuff.  I think
>the latter program has Pittman in the name; both were set up in the
>40s or earlier.

Yes, Pitman-Robertson funds and various stamps generate revenues.  I'll see
if I can get a breakdown, at least for my state.  And I'll also see if I
can find out about revenues for non-game programs from other sources as
well, for comparison.  But don't hold your breath -- it'll take a while :)

>Yes, hunters do tend to ignore non-game habitats.  As long as the rest
>of us do too, the appropriate response is to expand the definition of
>game to include more habitats.

Huh?  I'm not trying to find ways for hunters to pay more than they are;
I'm just trying to point out that funds from hunters aren't a magic cure.

>>Just out of curiosity:  how many CA hunters supported the referendum on
>>mountain lion preservation?
>
>They opposed it because it really was a land grab in SoCal.  It
>doesn't have any environmental value either.  (BTW - People who
>carefully read the law discovered that it gave them a CA
>constitutional right to hunt mountain lions whenever they wanted to
>and using almost any method, as long as they were willing to use an
>appropriate "lure".  Oops.)
>
>When mountain lions were scarce in CA (a result of a state-sponsored
>predator abatement/bounty program), they were legally protected.
>They're not scarce now, as people who insist on intruding in their
>habitat discover.  If we develop their habitat, they'll become scarce
>again.  There aren't many mountain-lion compatible uses of suitable
>habitats and hunting is about the only PAYING use that qualifies; we
>know what happens to places with no paying users.  Other low-impact
>outdoors users simply won't pay, as CA and CO's "wilderness pass"
>system demonstrated.

We probably have different definitions of "scarce."  And I suspect our
philosophy about preservation is somewhat different -- but maybe we need to
discuss that off-list.

>>Are any hunting groups involved in the efforts
>>to deal with the heavy-metal poisoning of the interior wetlands?
>
>They FOUND and popularized the problem.  Ducks Unlimited is involved
>in the lawsuits and has been fighting over water policy for decades.
>(The fishing groups are getting up to speed, but they're torn between
>commercial and sport interests; when they cooperate, they're a force.)
>The urban regions only recently got involved in the water wars and it
>isn't obvious that their wins will be a good thing; we know what
>they'll do with the water.

Good deal.  See?  I *said* these groups did some good :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:54:17 PDT
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@CS.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Gore on the Environment

"Lately Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured
into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor
environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in
Gore's words, `undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support
for the difficult actions we must soon take'." [New Republic, 7-6-92]

Does anyone want to confirm that TNR actually printed that?  (I
haven't.)  Assuming that Gore actually said it (which is different
than confirming that TNR actually printed it), does anyone want to
argue the idea is a good one?  (Yes, it is an effective tactic.)

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:18:49 EDT
From:         todd pukanecz <CCCS@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: meaningless phrases
              31 Aug 1992 10:29:07 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

> "Let's try education"
> "Don't you think education will solve ..."
> "We can overcome this through education"
>
No doubt that these phrases are meaningless to the under-educated.  It
should be noted here that bad education is just as detrimental as no
education at all.  But there is no substitute for knowledge.

Am I to assume that more meaningful phrases would include "Ignorance is
bliss", "We don't need no education...", and "Book learnin' ain't never
done me no bit o'good"?

> "It tastes like chicken".
>
Thanks.  I always wondered what a foot tasted like.
   toddddddddd
   (But I'm is a collij gradjimate.)
>
> ---Robert

=========== Wake up John Doe.  You're the hope of the world! ===========
--------     /^^\    ---- Todd Pukanecz ----   ----  CCCS@VTVM1  ----
-----      /      >   --- Ag. Econ. DPL --- "If you can't learn it in
---  /\_ / @       \   -- Virginia Tech --   two hours, it isn't worth
-  /________________>   - Blacksburg VA -    knowing."  - LARE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:44:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Order restored
              25 Aug 1992 14:21:46 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

Robert:

God is not bound by Jamie's lack of faith--only Jamie is.

(But God's not thrilled with the situation, either.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:08:49 CDT
From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re:Boing

Hello all,

Missy,

When you said Patrick Lucey, I yelled THAT'S RIGHT in the library...must
not doooooo that in a library.

Wisconsin, hunh?.....remember what Rush said about people and events in
Wisconsin????  "It is always interesting."

Anymore news on 'Ernst Blofeldt Perot'?, the newest James Bond villian.
(Man, that's a hoot), has he decided 'TO RUN OR NOT TO RUN', that's what
we all question.

Sue Clark

Yes, yes I know I misspelled 'Politcos', but it sounds like a new gas station
for politicians complete with its own motto:

'Will this ever come to pass, a politician out of gas!'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:57:21 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Choice as Evil/Good

In a discussion about gov't vouchers to pay for private school choice, -
andy wrote:

>We have lots of programs that allow govt spending at private
>institutions.  In most cases, the consumer gets to pick the supplier.
>For example, AFDC recipients can spend that "money" almost anywhere.
>Housing grants can be used at any qualifying supplier, even if that
>supplier is religious.
>
>I can see why we might have a "schools which use <bad criteria> to
>choose their students won't be reimbursed for the vouchers they
>accept", but the anti-choice folks want more.  They think that only
>public schools should receive public education funds, at least when
>we're talking about K-12.  Why is K-12 different from other education,
>from other govt spending?

First, I agree that funding for education doesn't necessarily mean funding
the institutions that provide education.  But that's how the system is
currently run.  So I guess K-12 is different because it's different :)
Seriously -- I see the difference as being consistent with other spending
policies.  For some goods and services, the premise is that individuals
should acquire them on their own.  This includes food, housing, and college
education.  In these cases, the govt sometimes provides assistance for
those who need it.  Other goods and services, like roads and K-12 public
education, are provided more-or-less directly by the govt.  Here, the
premise seems to be that direct spending is the best way to provide equal
access.  In these latter cases, I don't think we have a policy of using
public funds to support private alternatives (but I'm willing to stand
corrected).  That is, I don't think we use public funds for people to build
private roads, provide private security forces, etc.

If we want education consumers to have full freedom of choice *and* public
funds to purchase education, then maybe we need to privatize K-12 education
and give every family however many dollars are necessary to ensure that
they'll be able to afford good to send their kids to good schools.  Until
then, though, providing government vouchers for private education doesn't
make much sense to me.  But then, school choice without a substantive
reform of the entire K-12 system doesn't make much sense to me, either :)

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