HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-VMS-To: in::"politics@ucf1vm.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:58:07 -0500
From:         "Chris A. Sloffer" <SLOFFER_CHRIS_A@LILLY.COM>
Subject:      Re: well, pardon me!, Version 5
Comments: To: politics <politics@ucf1vm.bitnet>

>I guess that I am just ticked that in actual fact no justice was done.?

>I still have hopes that the Bush administration has forgotten about
>some files that still need to be shredded!  I hope that Clinton and
>his people can find these files, declassify them and at least embarrass
>the Reagan/Bush people.

>Jonathan


Now which is it?  Is the goal that "justice [be] done" (whatever that
means), or is it to "embarrass the Reagan/Bush people"?

I think that _MUCH_ too much time and money has been put into this subject.
If the special persecutor can't find a smoking gun in six year and $40 mil,
than he isn't going to.  Let's finish this and move on.  There is no
possible outcome that will lead to any "good."

As for special prosecutors in general, I have mixed feelings.  It sounds
like a good idea, but it seems a problem to give someone a blank check to go
on a witch hunt.  You would like to think that whoever is in the Justice
Dept. could run an investigation, regardless of the topic.  But of course
that would never satisfy those who cry conspiracy/coverup every time the
wind blows.

I think that the answer is to assume that the Senate did its job when it
confirmed the Justice Dept. officials, and thus we have Justice people who
would do their job.  If people are not comfortable with the job, then
perhaps the step that needs to be taken involves changing the staff of the
committee that will do the confirmations.  Hmmmmm, that sounds fairly good
anyway..



Chris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:51:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: I screwed up, this is the REAL "On Rightism, ..."
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

In article <9212181700.AA12777@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>First based on socialism (a belief that the poor should fight the rich - in
>1930 Germany those rich were Jews)

       Err, not quite. Socialism is a belief that all men should share more
or less equally in the wealth they help to create. In other words, there
should be NO POOR PEOPLE. Now, if the currently rich do not want to share
their goodies......

 -Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:17:46 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: More cabinet appointments

>It's really a sad situation.  Finally America gets a president who
>genuinely does care about women and minorities, and very probably will

It really is sad when someone says something like the above and
expects to be taken seriously.

Tokenism is so "left".  After all, if they look the same, they must
think the same, heck - they are the same - right?  (Those deluded
souls who don't toe the line aren't real <minorities> anyway.)

-andy can't be represented by a politician who puts on his shoes in the
      "wrong" order or who has too little/much facial hair
--
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:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:04:58 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Pardons: who needs them?
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Granted, we have had limited numbers of democratic executive office
>holders in the past quarter century but can anyone list examples of
>pardons handed out by democratic presidents? I can't think of any off

        Carter: Draft dodgers, sundry criminals.  Before that you have to go
back to Johnson, who is before my time :).

>hand. As far as the Iran-Contra investigation taking a long time, that
>is what tends to happen when the administration is using all avialable
>resources to deny access to materials connected with the case on the
>never fails grounds of national security. Now that Bill Clinton is the
>commander-in-chief (don't you love the sound of that Brett and Robert?),

        Doesn't really bother me.

>he need never disclose who/what he has slept with in the past on the
>grounds that it would violate national security concerns. I personally
>have a problem with the character issue; Bush ran his whole campaign
>on "Who do you trust to tell you the truth?" and now it is obvious
>that he has been less than candid with the american people as to his
>knowledge of Iran-Contra.

        I expect executives to keep mum about certain things.  The question is
whether Bush himself did anything criminal.  Walsh keeps crying "cover up!" in
an effort to invoke Watergate, but it just doesn't wash.  He's had six years to
dig up facts, one thinks that Bush would have been indicted earlier if he was a
key player.  As it is, Walsh's claims of a cover-up are nonsense also.
Weinberger's notes are already archived, and available to those with the proper
clearance.  (Something Walsh could have obtained.)  But instead he blames the
two-year period from which the notes were archived until now on an attempted
"cover-up".  Phooey.  Walsh is incompetent.  He even has accepted the same kind
of gifts that he broiled North for accepting.

>I would also like to see a special prosecuter
>investigate the savings and loan fiasco and tell us how much money we
>could have saved by addressing the issue prior to the 1988 election.

        You'll have to unbury Mr. Wright's trail, and get the Keating Five out
of positions where they can bury investigations. :)  Of course, age and
politics have already removed a couple of key players from the field.

>Has anyone heard anything about Ross Perot lately? I haven't seen the
>news much lately but he seems to have had his fifteen minutes of fame
>and is now back in oblivion. I wonder, are the democrats better crooks
>than the republicans and manage not to get caught while in office,
>thus the infamous pardon gap?

        No, when you control the House, you can steal by proclaiming a new tax.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:27:17 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      request for information

Hi All:

Haven't much time, but I thought perhaps you could help me find some
information for a friend.  Before I get to the request, let me offer
my congratulations to those on the "winning" side of the electoral
equation, and my condolences to the losers.  I won't say which side I
feel closest to, but those who know me can guess :-)

Anyway, have to make this fast.  Does anyone have any information on
a woman named Helen Stevenson Meyner?  Apparently, her husband was
governor of New Jersey for a while, and she was in Congress.  Also,
she is a cousin of Adlai (Stevenson, for those in the under-30 set; not
that it's likely to help any--if you don't know "Adlai," then "Adlai
Stevenson" probably won't ring a bell either! :-) )

Right now, what we would most like to know is whether she is still living.
But any additional information we can get would be appreciated, as well.

Please mail responses to me privately at KSTE@PURCCVM (and anything else
you might like to send along--it's been a while!)

Thanks, and have a great new year!

Missy Most Contentendly Not to Be (Prez)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:14:20 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gay cabinet appointments
              30 Dec 1992 13:12:20 +0100 from
              <BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG>

I think it is more important to appoint people who are SYMPATHETIC
towards gays than appointing gays, because doing that opens the
roads to appointing gays in the future.

I thought one lesson in nominating Clarence Thomas was, "watch
what you wish because you may get it and it might not be what
you were REALLY wishing for."

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:04:30 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: why gold - money qualities

In article <9212211415.AA12714@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl> you write:
>"Why gold?" you ask.
>
>[Here are the qualities money should have:]
>-portability
>-indestructibility
>-homogeneity
>-divisibility
>-cognizability
>-relative stability of value compared to other commodities

Hmm.  Indestructibility seems overrated given "replacement".  (It
doesn't have to be infinitely divisible either.)

I do find it interesting that "can't be created at will" isn't
on the list.

Consider the effect of "New World exploration" on the economies of
Spain and Portugal.  Suddenly they had tons more gold than before.
Were they richer?  All they really got was the ability to do buy that
they couldn't afford before stuff from people who didn't have access
to gold, but too much of that, and they destroy their own productive
capacity.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:53:30 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech

>I wonder what the reaction would be if pro-choice groups were to take
>a similar approach and blockade entrances to houses of worship or
>businesses owned by anti-choice groups and tell people entering said
>places that they are contributing to child abuse and are in favor
>of abusing children since it is a well documented fact that some children
>have been abused by clergymen and businessmen such as John Wayne Gacey.

I'd wonder why those pro-choice groups were making such bogus
arguments.  If I didn't have the time and interest to investigate
further, I might go with "let's assume that they're intelligent and
making the best argument for their position" and conclude that there
aren't any good arguments for it.  Since there are, I get to choose
between "they're intentionally making bogus arguments" and "they're
clueless".  What message was intended?

>There has been a lot of print and air space about shock jocks such as
>Howard Stern lately. Haven't the people who are offended heard of on/off
>switches? Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to this stuff. Personally,

Yawn.  One of the consequences of engaging in similar activities is
that the reaction to whining when someone else does it is "why is your
ox sacred?"

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:00:48 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
From:         James Sheldon <U7636JI@DOES1.BITNET>
Subject: Re: gay cabinet appointments

Could we get real here?  What's the authority for the comment regarding  gay te
ens being disproportionate number of teen suicides?  Could you please identify
which "societies" consider gays to be "normal?"  I'd agree that there are socie
ties which "accept" gays, but that doesn't mean they consider them to be "norma
l."Uncle Ernie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:56:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      1993

And a happy New Year to you too, Linda...

Top Ten Reasons Why 1993 Will Be Better Than 1992...

1.  It's not an election year!  We won't have to watch David
    Brinkley sniveling, shriveling and swiveling in his chair
    until 1996...

2.  It's not an Olympic year!  No more overpaid, overhyped
    athletes engaging in flag abuse in the stadiums and
    ice rinks of the world...

3.  "1993" has more pleasant curves in it than "1992" --
    an inherently kinder, gentler year, even if only a
    little bit...

4.  Madonna will be just about out of ideas!

5.  We get to watch Gladiator Fights at the G.O.P.   Should be
    a blast!  I can't wait to see Pat Buchanan half-naked,
    oiled and in leather...

6.  We'll have a president who can go over to Germany and
    talk the skinheads to death in their native tongue.

7.  Nobody will take the British Royal family seriously any
    more, therefore relieving all the world from hearing more
    about their incredibly dull sexcapades.

8.  Millions more Americans are registered to vote than ever
    before, and there's not a bloody thing they can do about it!

9.  That killer comet isn't going to pass so close to the earth
    after all...

10.  1993 will be one day shorter than 1992.  Hoorah!


Have a happy, wear your seatbelt and don't drive drunk please...


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 13:19:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Queens controversy yet again
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >So you need to come up with a better justification for your attitude
> >than this.  So far all you've offered is personal distaste as a
> >justification for restricting the ability of gays to live or work
> >where they please.
>
> Actually, I haven't offered personal distaste at all.  I also haven't

Well, you've got to expect that when you reply to posts that weren't
addressed to you.  The above remarks were addressed to Robert, as the
ample quotes from Robert in the original should have made clear.  What
I can't decide is whether you really can't tell Robert's stuff from
your own (:-), or if you have decided to take up the job of Official
List Defender of Robert.

> advocated "restricting the ability of gays to live and work where they
> please".  I've merely said that no owner is obligated to provide it to
> them.  (I'd like to have a Ferrari.  Is the local Ferrari dealership
> "restricting" my ability to have one by refusing to give one to me for
> the price I can afford?)

You'd better throw that analogy away before it explodes on you.  If the
local Ferrari dealership refuses to sell you one because you're a _____
(fill in the blank), even though you have the money in your pocket, they
_are_ restricting your ability to own one.  If the local circus refuses
to give you a job as a juggler because you can't juggle, you've got no
complaint.

Best,
Peter

> -andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:56:44 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      On free speech ...

as abhorrent as neo-Nazism and the KKK is to me personally, I have to weigh
in on the side of free speech also. You may ask a person to be silent, but
I contend "forcing" anyone to be silent is as abhorrent as hate ideologies
are. It is sad that cross-burning and Nazi-regaliaed marches occur, but I
cannot see their prohibition as serving the ideal that the First Amendment
is "supposed" to mean. VMS
From: MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU (K=A*T)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Pardon me. No, pardon me!
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:42:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              31 Dec 1992 14:16:00 PST from <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be" <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>

>>       Then Quayle could resign and let President Baker pardon him and....
>>
>>       The Republicans could then claim a string of N+1 presidents in a row
>> :D.

> Flaw in your logic:  Foley is next in line, not Baker.

>                                                        Dan, ad nauseum

No! President Quayle's vp would be next in line.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:16:53 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      Re: planning

On Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:24:04 MET Grzegorz Albinowski said:
>
>>>I do not accept the government manipulating the economy.
>>
>>What would you do if the economy collapsed?  To quote FDR, "Try anything.  If
>>it doesn't work, try something else."
>
>Economies usually colapse BECAUSE of government manipulation. Something else
>we can try is no government manipulation.
>

What about Japan?  Their rise to international economic dominance was due
mainly to Government involvement to restrict the money supply, to give large
subsidies to favoured companies, to place hefty tariffs on imports.  Is it
just a coincidence that since the Japanese were forced to relax their economic
policy that they have slid into recession?

>>Dan, ad nauseum
>
>Caius


james
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:59:44 CDT
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: sigs
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Fred,

I'm sorry that you've become weary of my tired old track.  I wasn't aware
that sigs had an expiration date.  Most likely, a search of the logs would
reveal that there are many sigs much older than mine.  Maybe it's not the
age that bothers you, but the message.

In any event, I've changed it *just for you*.  Is this better?

---Robert

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
 that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
 everlasting life." John 3:16
From: EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET (Ellen.Edgerton)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: well, pardon me!
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:23:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

What Brett said about "guilty until proven innocent."  It's the truth.
And you all know I am no great fan of Reagan/Bush.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:36:00 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Presidential Pardon
              31 Dec 1992 17:21:18 EST from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

p.s.  Well you might ask, "how do we know which crime is
impeachable beforehand?"

Good question!  One which I don't know the answer to.  :-)

However had I thought about this a bit sooner I would have
modified ny interpretation as to, "a person could be impeached
of a crime even if he has been pardoned by the President for the
same crime."

The bottom line is that the president is not given the power
to pardon an impeachable crime.

Of course this is what I think would have been more logical and
obviously has no relation to reality, so you may not take it
very seriously.  :-)

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:16:09 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Uncl: crosses, kids, and rape camps

  Set Politics No-Moss
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:41:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Cross controversy?

Brett,

>>It's simply not true.

Very convincing, Brett.

:)

If I'm not supposed to think that libertarianism allows for no
common social interests, why do some people assume that socialism,
or even our current form of government as it stands, allows for no
individual freedoms and enterprise?

The libertarians just want it MORE >their< way.  I suspect America
doesn't work quite that way.

Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:53:16 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: A.B. Normal
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

KAT:
>I just heard on NPR that 8% of the US citizens are foreign
>born.
>
>Well, there we go....another abnormal group of people.
>
Some of us might suggest that those born in the US are disnormal.

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:56:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Overhead (does a domed stadium count?)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> ...but how is an overhead negotiated between the government and
> private/public institutions?  My understanding is that this is
> negotiated periodically and every institution is "granted" a
> figure which is probabely different than others.  Anyway, the way
> it is done is for the institution to demonstrate (based on past
> expenses) the amount of legitimate overhead.  Therefore if
> an institution (e.g Stanford charged a sailboat for the president
> as overhead) LISTS (not necessarily CHARGE DIRECTLY) a disallowed
> expense, it would end up with a higher than deserved overhead.

My understanding is pretty much the same.  Every funding agency has
its own policies with regard to overhead (or "indirect costs").  Some
disallow them completely.  Others use different bases to figure the
amount to which overhead is applied (such as deducting equipment
money from the total).  I'm not really a specialist on this, but if
there's interest I'll ask around and get some more info.

Best,
Peter

> --KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:39:43 EST
From:         Harold Pritchett <HAROLD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Wish list

At the beginning of a new year, I would like to add an item to the mailbook
wish list.

There has been a lot of discussion on the header_people list about mail,
return-receipt-requested headers, and the general idea of delivery
acknowledgments.  I know that MAIL/MAILOOK does this now, but I would
like a little more control over this process.

What I would like is a flag in my configuration file which would allow for

     1) operation the same as it does now.  (return the receipt
     automatically.)

     2) Pop up a menu saying a receipt has been requested, and ask me if I
     want to send it.  This way, I can send the receipt to my boss, but
     not send the one to the person in Timbuktu who has been bugging me
     about something.  I may want to read the item, and save it to later
     forward to this system administrator when I finally get mad enough to
     do something about this idiot, but I certainly don't want to encourage
     him by acknowledging that I read his mail.

     3) Do nothing.  Ignore the request.  (for those people who feel that
     the whole process is a violation of their rights to read their mail
     in private, when they feel like it without telling anyone about it.

Best wishes for the new year to everyone.

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