HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:08:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Visit Colorado - #2

> Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:44:46 EST
> From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
> Subject:      Re: Visit Colorado - #2
>
> >From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
> >
> >   Admendment 2 in Colorado does not deny any homosexuals of any
> >constitutional rights.  The only thing #2 does is to deny minority status.
> >Homosexuals earn more than the average american, have a higher educational
> >level than the average american, and hold higher job positions than the
> >average american.  Now, if the homosexuals are not suffering in earnings,
> >education, and employment then why do they need to be a minority?  If they
> >were a minority it would give them an advantage over other people above and
> >beyond what they already enjoy.
>
> Carl, get a clue, would you?

   A clue to what?  Are detectives on this adventure James?
>
> No state law can possibly deny anyone their constitutional rights.

  Absolutely!  Yet, the homosexuals and others are talking about them
  being denied their rights.  And since a law cannot deny constitutional
  rights, except in movie theaters, then what rights are denied?

> To paraphrase St. Thomas (sorry, Val), an unconstitutional law is
> no law at all.
>
> What could you possibly mean by saying that if homosexuals constituted
> a minority it would give them an advantage? Homosexuals DO constitute
> a minority (unless Kinsey was GROSSLY mistaken). What advantage does
> it give them?

   I see, you are defining minority based on numbers.  A minority is in
   reference to someone based on physical characteristics.  That is why
   women are a minority, although there are more of them than men.
   If someone enjoys an above average lifestyle why do they need employment
   protection?  Minority rights only deal with pay equity, employment and
   housing rights.

> >   There are laws on the books that do prevent people being discriminated
> >against in housing and employment.
>
> These laws no longer protect homosexuals in Colorado from discrimination
> on the basis of sexual preference.

  I would have to dispute that based on what I remember that I heard.
>
> >        Admendment 2 does not condone violent behavior against homosexuals,
> >or puting them in camps.
>
> Homosexuals will be very grateful, I am certain.

  They should be and so am I.  If a homosexual is assaulted they can press
  charges against those that hurt them.
>
> Jamie

Carl---+
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Cross controversy?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 14:42 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GT7D2EBO84002MS9@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,        
 The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
>>On Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:54:00 EST Travis Kidd said:
>>>How is putting up a cross considered hate speech?
>>
>>It depends upon the group putting it up; I doubt that if the Salvation
>>Army put up a cross, the action would be considered hate speech.
>>>-Travis
>>Evelyn
> 
>        Which is why hate crimes will always (hopefully) be struck down.  You
>can't pove [sic] what people are thinking.

I think the point is actually not the actor, but the intent.  Would John
Lennon's famous "bigger than Jesus" interview be considered a hate speech? :-)

							Dan, ad nauseum
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:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:08:47 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?

Hi, y'all:
In response to my response, Carl wrote:

>   Anyways, I saw his press conference live on C-Span and he said that he
>   regretted his behavior and that it was not appropiate and that he was
>   sorry.  He also said he did not know if there was any type of program
>   around that he could go to for help, but he was going to check into it.

Ah!  If he admitted to sexual harrassment, then I stand corrected -- he
really *did* apologize.  As for programs from which to receive help, he
shouldn't have too much trouble finding one.

>   I think that he should be given a chance as well.  Yet it seems as if NOW
>   wants to tar and feather him.  So much for forgiveness to those who ask.
>   At least he admitted it and said he was sorry and is going to try to change.
>   What NOW should be doing is helping him to recover from past sins and tell
>   other men, and women, that too can reconcile themselves by admitting their
>   errors and seeking help.  What NOW is presently doing is like someone
>   beating up an alcoholic asking for help instead of helping.

I view NOW's current protest with mixed feelings.  On the one hand, I agree
with you that NOW should be using this incident as an opportunity to
institute real programs to educate congresscritters about sexual
harrassment and to reduce its occurrence -- not to carry out a vendetta
against Packwood.  On the other hand, I can readily understand why NOW
members feel that a strong protest against Packwood is necessary to ensure
that the issue of harrassment be taken seriously.  That is, they might feel
that they're actually engaged in a negotiation -- one in which the
"establishment" (including the Ethics committee) wants to issue a simple
slap on the wrist.  To gain the ends you and I agree are appropriate, they
may feel it necessary to ask for *more* (Packwood's resignation) so that
they have some room to compromise.

Does that make sense?  I'm not saying I agree with what NOW is doing.  But
I do have a visceral sense of *why* they might be doing it.  But I might
not have expressed it very well :)

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:07:29 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Addiction as Disease

On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:01:00 EDT <CLARK@EVMSVMS> said:
>Why does Robert place a "?" after the title "Dr." in Jack
>Kevorkian's name?

Kevorkian's license to practice medicine was revoked.

>
>-T.

Evelyn
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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:09:12 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      Re: Privatizations and standard of living
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              93 2:45 pm

Ramon pisze:
>>
>> Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> said recently :
>>
>> >> Even a limited privatisation can drastically raise the
>> >> living standards.
>> >
>> >That's right. And mass privatisation can treble the efect. That's what we
>> >want, raise our living standards, don't we?
>>
>>         Well, such splendid generalizations are not always true.
>> Historically, since they gained independence, mass privatization in Latin
>> America, Africa and huge parts of Asia has made the living standards go
>> down and the killing, repression and rise of dictatorships go up. Recently,
>> since some of them, (in Latin America at least), have again "achieved
>> democracy", (using the term VERY loosely), a drive for mass privatizations
>> became the rage on the 1980's.

Most of the problems you describe were the results of lack of mass privatiza-
tion. In Latin America economies are controlled by the cartels which
participate in governments. Most of the African countries (South Africa
being an exception) are less or more socialist.

I haven't heard of any mass privatization programs (really inplemented, not
planned) in those countries, except in Chile which was very successful.

Other example: some sectors on the economies in Eastern Europe (Poland,
Hungary, Czekoslovakia) have been massivily privatized in 1989/90, and
they are performing surprisingly well. (It wasn't a surprise to me, in fact)

Those sectors, which were not privitized, still have problems, are being
closed or demand subsidisies from the state.

>> No effect of the sort you describe has been
>> seen yet.

Above are some some examples *I* have witnessed.

>>
>>  -Ramon
>>

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:46:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Freedom From Discrimination

Quotas?  Here is an example.  There was a minority businessman who had a
successful business outside of Chicago.  The locale that his business was
in had a high percentage of Black residents.  The owner was take to court
because he did not have enough Blacks working for him.  Through the courts
people were trying to force him to hire x number of Blacks and pay them for
x number of years.  There is a true case of quotas.

If there is not such a thing as quotas, and race norming, then why are
colleges setting aside a certain number of seats for minorities?  Remember
the Asain students that were suing a medical school?  And as was offered
previously, what about the practice of letting minorities pass tests with
lower scores?  I know of a school that was not going to possibly hire my
wife because she was only white, luckly she did get her job but the threat
was real.  And Rutgers policy, a written policy, is that when two candidates
qualify for a job and if one is a minority then the minority, or female,
gets the job.

Carl---+
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:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:10:55 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The right to discriminate, the privilege to drive...
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>        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?"

        Check out the Bakke case, if you still don't understand.

>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)

        Actually, it's your objections that continue to be filled with "I don't
accept that as a fact, so you'll have to try again".

        I'm not here to serve as your researcher.

>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?

        The laws are vague, because of instances like Bakke.  Because of that,
employers are caught in a catch-22 situation.  How many is enough?  If you have
less than the regional distribution, you better hire/promote some minorities
just to be safe.
        If you have a number you feel is sufficient, but don't want to hire any
more, you can do so, using that number as a shield.

        The basic problem seems to be that some people don't want to admit that
the government, after enforcing the suppression for 180 years, didn't give them
a good weapon against discrimination in 1964 (and successive years).

        Face it, the government is not going to give you any real power,
especially if it can convince you the laws work in you favor (even when they
don't).

        Answer this question:

        If the various civil rights bills are sufficient for equality, why is
there still inequality?

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:03:49 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      They're back....

-T, looking for an opening, tries:
>D.  Saying "black" may be "P.UC." to some; saying "he" when the possibility
>    is equal between he and she is simply exclusive language.  We order our
>    thoughts with language; we order our actions with thoughts.  It's a
>    short road, for most, from exclusive language to exclusive actions.

  Well, you know, -T, you may be right.  I'd been
lead to believe that the answer to the exclusive
language question was still open, that some authorities
prefer exclusive language to the plural construction.
Since you brought it up, though, I'd feel much better
if you offered someone's expert opinion other than
your own.  Not that I doubt your credentials for a
moment.  I'll tell you what; I'll accept the word
of the Chicago Manual of Style.  (For you folks at
home, I don't have a copy, and don't know what it
says about exclusive language.  Place your bets now.)
Why don't you look it up, -T, and tell us what it
says.  We can settle this argument before it even
starts, and get Jamie off his short ride in a fast
machine of death and damnation through discrimination.
The road to hell is paved with gender confusions.
(You and Robert, both praying for our souls.)

                     -Tim

(Robert is more concerned with sexual confusions,
I think.  But the words are interchangeable, aren't
they?  I mean, according to the professionals....)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:51:31 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: re: school daze

On Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:53:57 CDT <SPRG0002@TULSAJC> said:

>>Think about it.  When was the last time you actually needed to
>>do a calculation similar to "546.23 x 1.78" ??  I don't recall
>>when I had to do it.

>>................. kids -- needs is estimating.  Yes!, estimating.
>>Estimating makes kids THINK.  Doing endless and mindless divisions
>>and multiplications does not.  What he needs is "word problems."
>>KAT

>Since I posted all the entries in my checkbook based on estimates, I
>estimate that my checking account has a $100.00 balance.  Do you think
>the bank uses the same method of estimating my balance?

1. Calculators are as cheap as $2.00 these days.

2. Checkbook calculations are all addition/subtraction ONLY.
   There are no multiplication/division involved.

>Clerk:      "That'll be $22.53 sir."
>Customer:   "He's a twenty, I estimate it's about the same."
>Clerk:      "Thank you.  Have a nice day."
>Shop owner: "You're fired!  Stupid!"

Can we discriminate against stupid people?  How about stop
giving them computer accounts?  After all they can compute
on their own and don't need a computer.

>Clerk:      "That'll be $26.00 sir."
>Customer:   "Here's thirty"
>Clerk:      "Thank you.  Have a nice day."
>Customer:   "But, where's my change?"
>Clerk:      "What change?"
>Shop owner: "You're fired!  Stupid!"

Finding the change in this example actually (rather ironically)
requires ESTIMATING skills.  Either the cash register would
determine the change or the clerk has to use a calculator.  Under
no circumstances these days do clerks have to use pen and paper.

If the clerk is to figure out the change in his head, that is
actually more of a estimating type than carrying the calculation
on a piece of paper.

I kind of wonder what side of this argument you are.
But please, in fact I insist, remain on the other
side.   :-)

--KAT
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Presidential Pardon
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:27 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%93010411150619@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,     
    Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes...
>>From:         "Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be"
-- <dreitman@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
>>1.      Conviction of a criminal offense does not automatically remove the
>>President of office (which would terminate power to pardon), but impeachment
>>proceedings would probably begin immediately if Congress convened.
> 
>I don't think that there IS such a thing as a conviction of a president
>before impeachment. Impeachment must proceed a trial of the president.
>And impeachment removes him from office.

Never tested, but if members of Congress can be prosecuted without
Congressional action, why not the President?

>>3.      The reach of the power of the President to pardon is, as has been
>>demonstrated, extends to former presidents, former and probably sitting
>>officials, etc., and may cover past offenses not yet charged.  The Supreme
>>Court would probably have to decide whether the Constitution grants the power
>>of auto-pardon.  Given the division of the current Court, it could go either
>>way, and may depend on the Court's reading of United States v. Nixon (the
>>Watergate tapes).
> 
>The pardon power does not extend to "sitting officials" who would have
>to be impeached. For example, to judges.

You're right on that one, except that at least on member of Congress (sorry, I
can't remember the name) during Reconstruction received a Presidential pardon
for a conviction while his case was pending before the Supreme Court.  (They
knocked it off the docket.)

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:18:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: freedom of speech

>(I think we should print up some Political Philosopher Bubblegum
>Cards. Caius and I could trade them. They'd have slogans on them,
>and scores of how many dead people resulted from the philosophy.
>A goldmine, don't you think? Caius can have all the gold.)

cool idea jamie.
tell ya what, i'll do the drawings of the philosophers for a small fee.
well, okay, for all the bubblegum my kid can chew since you're giving
caius the gold.
-linda
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:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:41:33 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      color-blindness
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              "KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU" at Jan 8, 93 10:50 am

KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU pisze:
>>
>> I think "color-blindness" is a wonderful ideal.

It is called daltonism.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:51:24 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Freedom From Discrimination

This must be another round of T-Jeopardy, right?

>From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>

>Quotas?  Here is an example.  There was a minority businessman who had a
>successful business outside of Chicago.  The locale that his business was
>in had a high percentage of Black residents.  The owner was take to court
>because he did not have enough Blacks working for him.  Through the courts
>people were trying to force him to hire x number of Blacks and pay them for
>x number of years.  There is a true case of quotas.

Incorrect. This is NOT a true case of quotas.

Under what law was the owner sued (or prosecuted)? I hereby
predict, knowing nothing of the case other than what Carl
has said, that the owner was challenged for discrimination.
Statistical evidence constitutes prima facie evidence of
discrimination. And by law, such evidence is admissable (so far).

(It SHOULD be admissable, too.)

What the man is prohibited by law from doing is discriminating
in hiring because of racial prejudice. The numbers were offered
as evidence. At least, this is what I predict.
If I'm wrong, then Carl does indeed have a case of quotas.

However, we STILL don't have a case in which quotas work the
way Brett says they do.

>If there is not such a thing as quotas, and race norming, then why are
>colleges setting aside a certain number of seats for minorities?

For various reasons. Which colleges are setting aside a certain
number of seats for minorities? (Mine doesn't.)

Why do colleges set aside (if they do) a certain number of positions
for progeny of alumni? Is it because of a quota law?

Colleges often have policies determined to constitute their
student bodies in a way they deem desirable, for a variety of
reasons. To call all of these policies "quotas" is absurd. To
say that they are the result of "quota laws" is even more absurd.

Or does the University of Michigan have a quota law that tells
it to admit really good basketball players?

> Remember
>the Asain students that were suing a medical school?

No. Please inform us.

>And as was offered
>previously, what about the practice of letting minorities pass tests with
>lower scores?

What about it? Is it a quota?

>I know of a school that was not going to possibly hire my
>wife because she was only white, luckly she did get her job but the threat
>was real.

Ooooh. Good example. An example in which there was no quota. There
was no preferential treatment. But there might have been. Impressive.

Does Carl actually know what the word "quota" means? Or is this
another Humpty Dumpty example?

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