HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:06:34 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:

>Dan a. n.:

>Hoping Rush has the tenacity of Morton Downey?

>Too late, my friend.  Rush has already outlived MD's tenure, dwarfed
>his audience, and gone far beyond his scope.

>Best Seller List, Baby.  NYT.  17 weeks and counting.  3 hours a day,
>10 million-plus listeners.

Still hasn't outsold 'Mein Kampt' yet, I see. Must do better.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:42:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Rush is just having fun!

Rush Limbaugh was asked by his TV make-up artist (to whom he refers
with a title graphic as "Commie Makeup Babe") why it is that
conservative men are often divorced.

--

In his certainly political, yet "non-politically influential",
certainly sincere yet "lighten up, it's just a joke", certainly
sexist yet "tolerantly razzing" way, he responded:

     Conservative men - nay, most all divorced men - are divorced
     because their wives (in a mocking, babylike and less-than-
     intelligent voice) "always waaannt us to spend all our time
     wit demm....deh waaaannnt us to give dem gifts and nice
     things...deh waannt us to pay aaaTENNNshunn to dem".  Then,
     while you're out working your butt off to take care of your
     wife and family and provide for them and bring home the money,
     they go find a guy who sells jeans for a living, makes 1/3 your
     salary, they go live with them, they divorce you, and make the
     other guy spend 50 hours a week with them.  They have a nice
     time, but then they miss all the things you gave them and the
     money and the good times - so they make that guy spend 50
     hours with them AND work 50 hours a week to keep her in all
     those nice things.

And then, presumably, the poor overworked henpecked man has no
choice but to divorce her - unless he works too hard, spends too
little time with her, she divorces him.

--

Now, if I called up Rush right now and told him on the air that I
thought what he said was great, that I agreed with it 100% and that
people need to hear this, would he tell me to "relax", "lighten up"
- that he's only "having fun"?

Thought not....then why do you suppose he and his minions say
exactly that when people object to stuff like this sexist piece of
garbage?  Hmmmmm?!?


-T.

"To know things is to be learned.  To know others is to be wise.
To know the self is to be enlightened."
                                         -Anthony DeMello
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:56:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: DC

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:42:00 EST
From: Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>I have another question: constitutionally, does a person have a right
>to move to another state without the state's permission?  If so, where
>is this right listed in the Constitution (explicit or clearly implicit
>is fine with me)?

        I am not to sure about moving in a permanent sense, but the right of a
person to travel ininhibited across state lines is interpreted to be contained
in the Interstate Commerce Clause.  This was part of the basis for the Court's
decision in _Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. US_ (1964) which upheld the
validity of part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited
discrimination in accomodations.

        I am not sure if a state has the authority to label a person _persona
non grata_ or to essentially issue an injunction barring a person from entering
a state as the result of prior crimes.  Can our "Attorney to be" enlighten us?


-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "Lafayette, we are here!"
Marshall Univ. History Dept.            -Col. C.E. Stanton, 4 July 1917, Paris
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       "We've paid off that old fart Lafayette.  What
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU       frog son-of-a-bitch do we owe now?"
YEA003@MARSHALL                         -U.S. Infantryman after Battle of
                                         Soissons, 28 May 1918
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:27:50 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        The major objection is that Herrera did not bring up the "oh, by the
way, I'm innocent" claim until every other appeal had been used.

        The court is saying that a claim of innocence at this point can not be
considered reason enough to stay an execution (mainly because it would happen
every time).

        Now, claiming your dead brother is really the killer might be
convenient, by why didn't he bring this up earlier, like when he was arrested
and when his brother was still alive?

        Seems mighty fishy to me.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:41:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kerry Stephenson and immigrant culture
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

Mike continues to shine:

>         The period of immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s was
> significantly different from earlier immigrant periods.  It dwarfed all
> previous eras of immigration in size and scope, with 25 million arriving
> between 1865 and 1915 -- four times the number who had arrived fifty years
> before.  The source of this surge was markedly different as well, with many
> of these immigrants coming from Asia or Southern and Eastern Europe --
> cultures far more removed than the indigenous American society.
>
>         There were those in this latter period who sought to "help people to
> become Americans."  The motivation was not altruism, however, but rather
> xenophobia.  The Immigration Restriction League, founded in 1894, sought to
> screen "undesireable" immigrants out through literacy tests and other means.
> The "Americanization" movements of the Progressive Era had similar motivations
> at their root.  Thus, fewer people were driven by a desire to "help" these
> immigrants than to protect their own status by watering down the culture of th
> newcomers.

Wasn't it also the case that assimilation efforts tended to skip the
immigrant generation anyway?  They would tend to cluster in ethnic
neighborhoods, while the children (with a large dose of persuasion
from the schools) would pick up American culture.

There was a good story posted on the net recently that I'll take this
opportunity to share with you.  A third-generation Chinese-American man
opens the door to see a couple of (Mormon, I think) missionaries on the
doorstep.  They flip through a phrasebook and address him in Chinese,
which he doesn't speak.  When he doesn't respond they try Japanese,
Korean and Vietnamese, to no avail.  Just as they're starting to scratch
their heads and wonder what to do, the fellow says "I wish you people
would go back to wherever you came from and leave us Americans alone!"
Slam.

Best,
Peter

> Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:25:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram

Dave Polewka says:

=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================



Thanks to Dave for reminding us what we did for twelve years....and so now
reap the just rewards of that perseverance.


Isn't it great that after a dozen years, we finally have a President whose
definition of "human rights" doesn't mean the right to a capital gains
tax cut?


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:38:17 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: where liese is; or, i once was lost, but now am found
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

This poem got me thinking...  (Oh-oh.)

How would the American Revolution, or even World War II been
different with the use of the Internet?  Would Hitler have ruled the
world if he was the only one with international networks (or a single
PC, for that matter...)
    Could he have run a war simulation until he got it perfect?


Sort of like, how would the world be different if LHOswald killed
Kruschev and not Kennedy?
Fidel Castro:  "I can only speculate about a speculative question.  I
*do* know that Aristotle Onassis *WOULDN'T* marrie Mrs. Kruschev."


Penny for your thoughts?  (At the number of messages I've received
today, let's see.... that comes out to be about $37,394.72...  Oops.
another one.  $37,394.73...<smile>...)

--Stan

_____________________________________________________________________
From the Right,
                                                 J. STANFORTH JACOBS
                                                <jacobs@law.ucla.edu>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:25:19 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Further comments on Iraq ...
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Both yesterday and today, US planes fired upon Iraqi radar stations for
> the "crime" of turning on their radar. It seems to me that the US is
> over-reacting to what I believe is a legitimate activity - to track possibly
> hostile planes over Iraqi sovereign territory. Had Iraq fired on the planes,
> my reaction might be much different. But, I believe the Iraqis are adhering
> to the letter of their "ceasefire," and I think that the US is currently
> exceeding its brief in firing on Iraqi radar. VMS
>
uhh, I don't think so.  By 'tracking', these units are in fact turning
on their radar.  With their radar turned on, it is a simple matter to
push a button and launch missles.  You don't launch missles until your
radar is on.  These planes are only acting in self-defense.  And if you
are flying a plane and want to wait until you actually _see_ a missile,
that's your death-wish.  I don't mind if these pilots react upon seeing
the radar light up.
There has been no more bombing of Iraq or even of the Iraqis SAM sites
since Clinton has taken office. So let's wait and see.

Jonathan
From: $GET@PCCJES2.BITNET (David Clem)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Health Care Reform
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:42:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:$GET@PCCJES2.BITNET>

I said:

>>Given what I see as the Clintons' "more government is better" mindset,
>>I doubt that individualized/private market solutions will get much
>>attention.

T. asks:

> Also - I'm not sure what you mean by his "mindset"...can you give examples?

I was refering to both the Pres. and First Lady.  Generally, Democrats are
more inclined to propose expansive govt. programs as "solutions" to problems.
Specifically, Pres. Clinton is in favor of "managed" trade, national service,
national health care, etc., etc., etc. (as pronounced by Yul
Brenner in the "The King and I").  If Hillary Clinton is not like-minded,
she's putting up an amazing front.

>>IMO, one of the major reasons health care costs so much
>>is that hardly anyone is spending his/her own money: thus there are
>>few incentives to economize.

> With all due respect to your opinion, it's wrong.

In my defense: what Brett' said.
Health insurance should be portable (across jobs), transferrable (across
insurance companies) affordable (through real risk-sharing pools), and
adjustable (to meet individual's needs and wants). One good model is that
of the federal government worker's health plan. Every year, the worker
can switch to another plan, without cost or penalty, offered by one of
hundreds of companies. It should also be decoupled from employers, so
it could work like life, home or auto insurance.

.stuff deleted.

There is another option: the Medical IRA. I don't know details,
but the outline is: employer annually deposits $3000 in your
account; you or your employer buy insurance to your liking,
what's left in the account goes to uncovered medical expenses,
if any. At the end of the year, you keep the remainder ala a
regular IRA.

- David

David Clem      $get@pccjes2.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:36:50 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Uncl: RE:Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        It's incredible that someone can be as deeply stuck in a groove
as you Robert--NOT!  "It seems a tad inconsistent for you to suggest
that Billy should not be blamed for something that happend during
his watch..."  Pardon me?  "The Sears action, at least to me, is a more
accurate measure of Billy's influence on the business environment.
What better way to prepare for an onslaught of higher taxes and
deepening government interference, than to shed facilities and
personnel?"
        So, by that logic, I guess it's safe to assume that years of
growing competition from leaner, more specialized catalog companies,
coupled with poor judgement on behalf of Sears management (i.e.
the Sears Financial venture, among others)  had ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with their current market position...  Yeah, okay,
I guess you win that one...

                        Bowing once again to superior logic...
                                        Travlr
From: diviney@carson.u.washington.edu (Patrick Diviney)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      NINAR needs a clue...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 12:16:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <01GTZSN98OBM0013M6@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU> MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU writes:
>I DEMAND that you explain yourself in the light of the actions of southern
>states re:civil rights in the period between 1863 and the Civil Rights Act of
>1964.  That century + 1year completely contradicts your central postualte
>of "the natural process toward voluntary acceptance".
>        I wait for your reply...
>
>                Travlr

In addition to the above, I would add that as a Libertarian I had hoped to
be able to defend the concept of states rights and divorce the concept
from the practices of slavery, etc.  My research paper this quarter is
going to be entitled "JC and the Nullifiers" (John Calhoun that is).  

I had sincerely hoped to be able to show that their arguments could be
defended without the necessity of including the slavery issue.  Alas, it
cannot be so.  The issue of slavery is tied to the fight for nullification
and states rights as inextricably as was Prometheus to his rock.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:10:40 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      new SC ruling
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Hi, y'all:
This comes from this morning's paper, with a Washington (AP) by-line.  On
Monday, the SC said that Texas may execute a man who claims to have new
evidence of his innocence, "ruling that inmates convicted in state courts
almost always are barred from contesting guilt in a federal appeal."

"'A claim of actual innocence is not intself a constitutional claim,' Chief
Justice Rehnquist said in a 6-3 ruling.  Executive clemency is the fail-
safe method to keep the truly innocent from being put to death, he wrote in
upholding a JTexas man's murder conviction and death sentence."

"The ruling limited federal judges' roles in sparing innocent people from
death.  But left undecided was whether the Constitution allows the
execution of someone who can prove true innocence."

Now, the background goes something like this.  A guy named Herrera was
sentenced to death for a 1981 killing.  State and federal courts upheld his
conviction and sentencing.  In 1990, he filed a new appeal saying his
brother actually had been the murderer; his brother's son swore he
witnessed the murder, and three other men say the brother confessed to them
.  Unfortunately for Herrera, Texas law requires that new evidence be
presented within 30 days of a trial, and so state courts refused to hear
the new claim of innocence.  A federal judge granted a new hearing, but the
5th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals reversed.

"The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.  Rehnquist said federal
courts can hear such appeals only if a criminal conviction 'offends some
principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscinece of our
people as to be ranked as fundamental.'  Herrera's case did not reach that
standard, Rehnquist said.  But he said Herrera may seek clemency from the
governor, and noted that all 36 states with death penalty laws also allow
such clemency."

Blackmun issued a verbal dissent, saying "'The execution of a person who
can show that he is innocent comes periolously close to simple murder.'  If
a defendant's rights depend on a governor's decision on clemency, Blackmun
said, 'then we no longer live under a government of laws.'"

What do y'all think?  If appeals of innocence can't be heard in federal
court, where *can* they be heard?  If innocence is not a fundamental
prinicple of justice, what is?  *What the hell is going on*????

Kerry
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:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:58:00 AST
From:         "Ramon, your friendly Dictator" <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>> Smoking or non-smoking, the number one cause of death of human beings
>> in America today is pre-natal dismemberment.  1.5 million per year.
>> And climbing.

>    Pre-natal?  Pre-BIRTH human beings?  Please give me your definition of
>a human being.

        Oh, no! Not again.... Red alert! Red alert! Prepare for incoming
onslaught of abortion messages. Mr. Sulu, raise shields. Chekov, lock in
the "delete" phasers...

 - Ramon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:04:33 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC

>From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>

>The Constitution grants specifically grants Congress the right to
>declare war, and the President the right to wage war.  Unless the
>Congress is willing to give some of its "war-declaring rights" to the
>President, they should not assume any of his "war-making rights"...

I don't get it. Please explain to me how the War Powers Act
usurps the right of the President to "wage war." As far
as I can tell, it only restricts the right of the President
(which he doesn't have!) to decide against whom to wage
war. That decision is properly made by Congress, since
it is precisely what "declaring war" amounts to.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:30:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Supreme court decision online

On Thu, 14 Jan 1993 14:05:50 EST Mike Fessler <MIKEF@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> I have an electronic copy of the recent Court decision regarding
> abortion-clinic protestors and Federal conspiracy law. It's very long
> (i.e.2900 lines, about150K). I'll be happy to mail it to anyone who
> wants it, since I don't want to cause problems for people with limited
> spool space. If anyone's interested, Court decisions are now posted to
> the Usenet group courts.usa.federal.supreme.

I'd like a copy.
TKIDD@CLEMSON.CLEMSON.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:07:57 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Okay, here's a standard:
>
> If a nominee (candidate, etc.) is found to have engaged in activities
> that *average people* would have been fined or jailed for without
> clout or money to get them out of it, that nominee not only should
> not be confirmed, he/she should be prosecuted.
> ...
> --NINAR Kerry

I concur, with one clarification.  The state would have to prosecute
the person for the crime revealed under the existing applicable
legislation AT THE TIME.  For example, if Baird had harbored/hired
illegal aliens in 1950, she would be punished and sentenced under
1950 legislation and specifications.

--Stan Jacobs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 19 Jan 1993 15:27:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the caius hokey-pokey

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1993 13:17:38 MET
From: Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

In response to the ongoing debate over definitions, Caius writes:
>
>The difference is : you believe your dictionary, I believe the historical facts
>
>Try the facts.
>

and later:
>
>John Kesley's definition is unanimous with the half of dictionaries, and
>historical facts. So it looks, he has supplied the right definition.

        OK, pull it over on the berm, son.  Driver's license and registration,
please?

        These statements come dangerously close to violating one of our
"Proposed History Policies," which I believe our benevolent list president
accepted a few months ago.  Namely, the writer suggests that the "facts of
history PROVE" his argument.  Let's see if I can find a good article on
objectivity in historical writing. . . .

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU