HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:05:46 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I continue to maintain that Kevorkian is meeting a desired need as opposed
to drumming up business, regardless of where he goes about it. You may
disagree with the "service" he provides, but his "clients" apparently do not.
I have detected no reports from anyone that he in any way has coerced a
person into killing themselves, in fact, if reports are correct, he demands
multiple discussions, including the would-be suicide's family, before
going forward. His "service," and how he goes about it, is one of the
clearest and most up front manifestations of informed consent I'm aware of.
Lastly, I'm not aware that Michigan had prohibited Kevorkian from going
anywhere, he's not currently under any kind of indictment. I'm not cognizant
of any changes in one's right to go where one wants, so if Kevorkian goes
to Ohio, he goes to Ohio, and if he assists someone to pass on, whose business
is that but he and his client? You cannot call murder an informed consent
behavior, I do not believe, and so far courts have apparently agreed. VMS
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, 7 Jan 1993 13:43:20 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The right to discriminate, the privilege to drive...

>        You're arguing apples and oranges.  To meet EEOC guidelines there have
>to be some minorities.  The quesiton is: how many?

That's what I (and others) have been asking you, "how many?"

You hold onto this quota thing with the same dogged don't-bother-me-with-the-
facts-please tenacity that Robert holds onto his belief in god. At least
Robert can tell you where it is written that his god approves/disapproves
this that or the other. B)

Where in the official literature (law, regulations, court decisons,
memos from high officials even) is it written what percentage of minorities
a given employer must hire/promote? 5%, 10%, what?


>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @MIDEUR, @VAL, @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:15:43 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Responses to Mideur-L posts on the Balkans, #8 of 8
Comments: To: mideur-l@ubvm.bitnet, val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet,
          olsenj@stolaf.edu, kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet,
          srdjan%cathy@kri.fer.yu

Date: 03 Jan 1993 11:08:28 -0600
From: Gottfried Mayer-Kress <gmk@PEGASOS.CCSR.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: RE: Balkan Wars

On Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:55:53 CST Marcia W. Richie writes:

>> 1. I take exception to the American man who remarked that the
>> Balkan inhabitants learned their hatred "at their mothers'
>> knees".

> I must fully agree: it is adding insult to injustice to all mothers
> who have to go through the pain to see their children killed, raped,
> and mutilated without any risk for punishment while UNPROFOR (UN
> "Protection" Forces) are in the country.

I sense the two of you are both right and wrong. A majority of
citizens in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Serbia-Montenegro
probably *don't* hate in the manner described, but I suggest a
significant minority DOES! UNPROFOR's role is to deliver food, not
stop the raping and killing, at least as I see and understand it, at
this time! Their role may change, but that appears to the current
situation.

> Blaming ethnically based hatred for the conflict is just too cheap
> of an argument which does not get us anywhere except to a pretentious
> "We-only-have-to-love-each-other" position.

I suggest that "blame" is less the question than perceiving a basic
truth - Milosevic and Karadzic, among others, ARE pursuing an
"ethically-based hatred" agenda, and I do not believe recognizing
that reality to be a "cheap argument," but pragmatic acceptance of
of real world behavior, however unpleasant that may be.

>> 2.I like to hear some discussion of the no confidence vote for
>> Milan Panic a couple days ago. Where are all the folks that saved
>> him from such a vote a few months ago? Why have they changed their
>> minds?

Most analysis I've heard states that his Montenegrin support
vanished.

> I think it is a clear result of the elections which were not
> sufficiently rejected by the west, after it was known that they were
> manipulated. I do not understand why the west does not massively
> support Panic against Milosevic. Maybe someone has some insights into
> the deeper layers of that problem.

Many of us had doubts about Panic's honesty and ability to lead. WE
can reject the elections, many of us have, but they were rigged, and
so the results were predictable. Did we raise objections to any of
the "rigged" elections the Communists held in Poland, Hungary,
Romania, Czecho-Slovakia, Bulgaria, Albania or the USSR from 1948 to
1990 save in a ceremonial and perfunctory way? I doubt our
"objections," and/or "support for Panic" would have changed the
results much.

>> Marcia Richie

> Gottfried Mayer-Kress

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:30:35 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5b
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
>
> > But is it? This finding happened _after_ the illegal activity.  Does that
> > make it legal?  Shouldn't that be something that the special prosecutor
> > looks into?
>
> Was it really AFTER?  Sources, please?
Sorry. I read a lot of newspapers and magazines.  If you feel like
going through the last two years of NYTimes, then please feel free.
I took an hour away from my family and went down to the San Jose
Library to look up on the on-line system back issues.  But when
it told me that in 1987, there were over 1000 articles relating
to Iran and Reagan, I gave up.  I just don't have the time.
>
> > Jonathan
>
> --KAT

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:15:55 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Braun
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:29:58 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>
>>        Every current rep form the territories is a Democrat.  .........
>
>So what is the charge here?  That Democrats are doing this
>not because it is the right thing but that it would give them
>more votes?

        Yep.

>Well, I am not stressing the increased vote part,
>THAT is a fact.  However, is Brett' saying that he knows the
>THOUGHT, er... the motivation of the Democrats.  How ironic!

        Nope, that is my observation, not certain truth.  You may assign any
probabilty of correct outcome to that that you wish. :)

>I like to hear objections to this move based on principles and
>the fact that it might violate the Constitution, not things
>like, "...well, if the votes are Democratic, then it must be
>a bad decision."

        Who has made that charge?

>Same thing for DC statehood.

        Give it back to Maryland.

>--KAT
Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:46:00 EST
From:         David Clem <$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: school daze

T. says, on education tax refunds/credits:

> Sorry, but this argument has been used, abused, and trounced during the
> early 80's "tuition tax credit" fiasco, sponsored by the RC Church (no, not
> the Cola).

Don't know anything about it - could you briefly summarize, please?

I grant that vouchers could raise problems with private schools,
mostly in the area of all the conditions/paperwork imposed when
taking govt. money. WRT religion, it shouldn't be a problem if
the criteria for being an "official" school is even-handed and
objective, preferably developed by an independent accrediting
agency.

> If I take your argument further, then I should be entitled to a FULL refund -
> since I have NO kids, in any school!
> And parents whose kids have graduated - they too should receive a full refund
> of their school taxes!

Hey, I'm willing to receive less than a full refund.

I think we may mixing up some rather distinct issues here.
Here's how I see it.

1) Do you think K-12 education reform is needed?
I believe radical reform is needed. Our current "system" is based on
industrial-age thinking, an agrian society's schedule and 100 year-old
technology (the chalkboard).

2) If you answer "yes" to 1), can such reform be done internally?
I don't think so. I believe only the pressure
generated from losing students and resources (money), caused by a real
choice program would enable such reform. Let a competitive marketplace
work to improve all (surviving) schools.

3) Is education a proper function of govt.?
I'm inclined to say no. I'd like to see some experiments with completely
private education before concluding that, however. Perhaps I'm assuming
too much rationality and generousity from people.

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:53:09 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      it's a wonderful life

Someone mentioned Bill offering the middle class a tax cut. I don't
recall that promise. What I remember was increased taxes on the upper
class with the money going to deficit reduction and rebuilding the
infrastructure. On paper, this would result in the middle class paying
a smaller percent of the tax burden and could be interpreted as a tax
cut in a certain sense.

Robert has stated that he doesn't want his children to be "exposed"
to homosexuals. Anybody see an inconsistency with constitutional rights
or robert's stated religious beliefs in that stance? Now that star trek
is "boldly going where noone has gone before will we see a revision of
religious text to remove incorrect references to person in the plural?

A new study has come out on the danger of second hand smoke. If we
can remove children from a home for parental alcohol abuse during
pregnancy, can we/should we do the same thing for exposure to second
hand smoke?

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:12:56 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Addiction as Disease
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> I have "genetic predisposition" to laziness.
>
> Will I have any special rights or treatment?
> Can I claim a "minority status"?
>
> Caius

   only if you manage to get up and do anything about it.

   there's probably a twelve-step program for it, too, if you can
be bothered to look it up. it's probably in minnesota, the world
capital of the nauseating things. "i admit that i have no control
over my life, and therefore i'm handing over myself to people who
give me free coffee in exchange for public self-abasement."

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:13:11 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
              7 Jan 1993 13:05:46 -0600 from <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>

Anyway, Evelyn's criticism should be against the state of
Ohio not Kevorkian.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:28:26 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 06:51:30 EST from K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/04/93 06:19

From Kat
What bout it?  Really!  It is (at least) argued that prayer
in scool is against the Constitution and infringes on the
rightof other citizens.  What about it?  Really!

From  Robert
I wonder how we ever got around the little problems of governmental
swearing in procedures, Congressional chaplains and opening prayers?  I
wonder why scripture is emblazoned in the walls of some of our oldest
governmental facilities?  I wonder how we decided to put "G"od on our
coins?  I wonder which American tradition/right/strength you'll decide
to attack next?

From KAT
Same thing could happen if the husband is HETEROSEXUAL and infected
with AIDS.

From Robert
True. But, like it or not, track the history of the infection and you'll
find homosexuality.

From KAT
....................................... husband should be sanctioned
against.  Why blame the homosexuality (or bisexuality), why not
blame being dishonest with your wife?

From Robert
Being dishonest, although wrong, does not cause disease.  Speaking of
shifting blame, what of your tendency to deny personal responsibility?

From KAT
Not that it is strictly important, but can't you come up with a more
perfect analogy for homosexuality?

From Robert
If my analogy is perfect, why would I look more one that is *more* perfect?

From KAT
Silly me.  When you said:
"The bottom line is that homosexuality does not deserve the legitimization of
minority status. Colorado has only arrived at the only possible conclusion."
I never thought that was what you meant by impossible.  Silly me.
So you are saying that if another state arrives at the same conclusion
as Denver, Boulder, and Aspen haev arrived, that that decision would be
"impossible?"

From Robert
Equally impossible to justify.  Equally impossible to believe.

> From KAT...
> BTW: the only "character" missing from your posts is....

> From Robert...
>  ~!@#$%^&*()_+| and ....

From KAT
Did you just say, "~!@#$%^&*()_+|" AND "...".  Now if I was a
"good" Christian, at this point I would have asked for your
Postmaster and make a federal case out of this.   :-)

From Robert
No you wouldn't.  If you really believed that I was using foul language,
as a good Christian, you would have forgiven me and prayed for me.
Anyway, you point is wasted.  You seemed to have made an issue of the
amount of keyboard characters present in my posting.  I just decided to
show you a few more. :-)  :-(  :-/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:36:42 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 18:17:52 +0100 from BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/04/93 11:21

Robert quoting the Bible:
>"for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,

From Sam
How cme you don't follow the example of your heavenly boss? How
come  ou hate such a huge part of humankind (you can calculate how
many gays and lesbians there are in the world) ?

From Robert
I think I'm just about sick of hearing this ridiculous accusation of HATE!
I do not hate homosexuals.  As a matter of fact, I can't think of anyone
that I actually hate.  Of course there are many I don't like and would not
choose to associate with.  That IMO is a normal process employed by all of
us in selecting our friends.

I believe the HATE argument is generally thrown as a smokescreen into these
discussions in lieu of useful comment.  Maybe with such limited ammunition
the tactic is understandable.  But, I don't like it and it is exceedingly
beneath any conceivable level of acceptability.  Defend your lifestyle if
you wish, but just because I don't agree with it don't start throwing
your own hate my direction.
The scripture sig in no way condones the homosexual lifestyle.  It also
doesn't say that I have to accept it.  What it does say is that there is
forgiveness for homosexuals, in fact for all of us.  Homosexuality is a
perversion and is explicitly against the Word of "G"od.  It is no more of a
sin than any other sin, but it is a sin.  If you care to defend lying,
stealing and adultery as legitimate lifestyles I will condemn those claims
just as I do your claim on homosexuality.  Live your life as you choose, but
don't look for solace or approval from me.
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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:16:50 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject: Re: freedom from discrimination

>   there's gotta be a place to start changing the society, andy. why
>not the legal system?

The problem is this; society won't change until the "hearts and minds"
of society change, as long as racism continues to fester in its many
forms (some of them so damnably subtle that it's hard to tell when
you've got one on you) in the people, it will continue to find
expression in society.

The sort of changes that produce measures of equality work far too
slowly (as Brett' has noted) due to the necessesity of the sort
of "consciousness" changes required to provide real progress.
The government/legal system is engaged in a process of trying
to implement the effects of that sort of change (to provide
much needed relief to the injured parties) in advance of the
society's raising of consciousness level.

Nobody is entirely happy with this situation on any side of the
issue, but, to date it is the best solution that we have been
able to implement.

>   not to mention the fact that the current system sucks.

You'll get no argument against that assertion from me.

>all it does
>is divide people rather than bring them together. all we are doing now
>is segregating people, building up anger, creating a spoils system.

Yet a substantial portion of those most harmed by racism are a *little*
better off than they would have been if the system had plodded on the
way it was going 30 years ago.

>look at the hassles clinton has had with the blacks and women and
>hispanics and etc. why not just tell people that from now on, merit is
>the only acceptable way to choose between interests and leave it at
>that?

Because *merit* has never been used in a widespread way to do these
things, and as long as racism is a factor, it never will.

>case in point - the military. individuals may be prejudiced, but
>the system is purely color-blind. you go exactly as far as your merit
>and determination take you. or is there a problem here i'm missing?

The military seems to be one of the society's success stories vis-a-vis
racism, though I base this not on personal experience, but on hearsay
evidence. Consider however the flap about gays in the military; do
you suppose that who a person sleeps with has some impact on their
ability to kill people effectively? I would refer you to a group
called the "Sacred Band of Thebes" if you have any doubts.

To sum up, if you want to create equality and equality of opportunity
you need to change minds moreso than laws; until then there is some
efficacy in having laws.

>rtf

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Uncl: Colorado
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:11 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <19930105.001445.sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>,       
  Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes...
>Finally, the waiting is over.  The dread document has been wrenched from the
>clutches of the realms of darkness and is revealed for all to see.  What
>injustice, what intolerance, what hate.......?  But wait, what's this?  Is
>this the evil amendment of which I've heard such wild-eyed claims?  Surely,
>an error has been made in conversion or perhaps a joke has befallen our
>confused gathering.  I see nothing to fear here, nothing to raise alarm,
>nothing that threatens the traditions of American life.  Nay my fellow
>senators, oops I got a little carried away, I see none of these things.
>Rather than evil and hate, 'tis logic and common sense which has been
>thrust into our unprepared bastion of souls in search of foundation, a
>hardened core of logicians, philosophers and sundry other misfits unable
>to see the forest for the trees, unable to perceive an absolute truth
>were it stuck in their eye.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Moss.  Amendment 2 is a craftily worded piece of
disabling legislation.  Not only does it deny any right of action or relief to
gays for any relevant act or omission suffered, but it very much looks like the
tip of an iceberg.

As for the allegation that logicians, philosophers, and presumably nearly
everyone who has posted in response to you is a misfit, and that your claims
are absolute truth, I think that you are outvoted on the board, and that on
issues such as morality or policy, one must accept that there is obviously no
consensus at this time.

I ask you to judge not lest ye be judged.  (And to be reminded of that by a
Jew, horrors! :-)

            						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:49:36 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Braun
              7 Jan 1993 10:29:58 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:29:58 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>        Every current rep form the territories is a Democrat.  .........

So what is the charge here?  That Democrats are doing this
not because it is the right thing but that it would give them
more votes?  Well, I am not stressing the increased vote part,
THAT is a fact.  However, is Brett' saying that he knows the
THOUGHT, er... the motivation of the Democrats.  How ironic!

I like to hear objections to this move based on principles and
the fact that it might violate the Constitution, not things
like, "...well, if the votes are Democratic, then it must be
a bad decision."

Same thing for DC statehood.

>Brett'

--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:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:57:06 -0500
From:         Bill J Good <billgood@WORLD.STD.COM>
Subject:      Re: the biBle
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Wed, 6 Jan 1993, Jonathan Fisher wrote:

> >
> >From Robert
> >That's Word with a "W" and God with a "G".
> > [...]
> > The Bible is the Word so (4) you're against it.
>
> The bible is a bunch of made-up stories written by old men and it has no
> semblance of truth in it.
>
> Jonathan

Jonathan,
   Would you care to elaborate on that statement? How do you KNOW it was
written by OLD men? How do you KNOW that it is "made-up"? How do you KNOW
that their is not TRUTH in it?

Bill Good
Internet: billgood@world.std.com
GEnie: BILL.GOOD