HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:25:16 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

-andy:
>The water wars in CA will come down to cities vs agriculture.  If the
>cities win, CA has water for at least 100 million people, but it won't
>be pretty.

Where does wildlife -- the kind that don't necessarily like rice farms --
fit in?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 15:35:44 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>>There are two ways to go about it.  The mountain lion benefits from
>>the deer hunting habitat efforts.  (In CA, there was no "build up the
>>mountain lion population" effort.)
>
>What's the other way?

BOTH ways are in that example.  The mountain lions benefitted from a
program for deer.  Some non-game species benefit from programs for
different types of game.  If you want hunters to protect the winter
range for certain song birds, find some reason for them to protect it.
Surely song birds aren't the only species in that range.

>I'm not sure I'm understanding this.  Suppose we've got two elephant
>populations (maybe like in different regions or something).  One is
>growing, one is in a bit of trouble.  Poaching is a problem in the latter
>one, in part because the profit is so great (demand is high and supply is
>limited).  OK, so we legalize hunting, and now the "producers" are getting
>the money.  If demand remains higher than can be sustainably supplied, what
>keeps the population in trouble from getting wiped out quickly and the
>other from getting wiped out slowly?

Why are we assuming that the producers will neither raise the price
nor increase production?  (While the demand for $10k Jaguars is much
larger than the supply, Jaguars are sold for $35k; the demand at $35k
does match the supply.  Sure, as a result I drive a Datsun, but ....)

Corn producers don't eat/sell their seed corn when the price goes up;
why would elephant producers be any different?  Only starving people
kill THEIR golden goose, others protect it, milk it, and breed more.
Since elephants are valuable (both in reality and by Kerry's
assumption) and don't take all that long to reach "market" age,*
elephant producers won't starve if they get the money.  If we insist
on giving that money to someone else, they will.

While many people will piss in other people's/common wells, few will
piss in their own well.

-andy

* - Consider orchards.  Many trees take decades to reach a useful age,
yet orchards are planted even by people who won't ever see "their"
orchards produce.  Why would elephant producers be any different?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jbm@panix.com (John Mignault)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:45:05 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <POLITICS%92090315452962@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
>
> public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.  This is without
> any restriction!  Just what we need, more taxpayer funds being spent to
> purchase bullwhips to shove up the rears of Mapplethorpes (sp) models.  As
> has been stated to many times to remember, REAL ART doesn't need artificial
> support!  Taxes  Taxes  Taxes
>
Just a small correction. The bullwhip was in Mapplethorpe's personal rear. I'd
also be innarested in knowing what you consider to be *real* art.

> ---Robert
>
> "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"
--John Mignault
You might as well vote for Daffy Duck, as far as I'm concerned.
Anybody wanna buy a slightly used set of Official Amerikan Family Valooz(tm)?
Good until 1994, the QuayleYeare(tm).

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:04:05 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
              10 Sep 1992 09:54:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

> .......  I hold that the same absurdity exists with respect to
> "homosexuality is immoral and it is not immoral."  It must be
> one or the other, not both.

I have problems understanding you, Richard.  Let me try
to understand better by posing the following question:

    -Under moslem morality it is immoral to charge interest.
    -Under Christian morality it is OK (at least I think)
     to charge interest.

It seems to *me* that both these statements are OK.  Are
you saying that charging interest is either moral or immoral?
Which one would you pick and why?

>                                     Richard A. Fyfe

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:36:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Where Carolyn left off

Re your baloney sandwich:

If you have a baloney sandwich you can put anything you want to in it, and you c
can call it anything you want to.

If you give me a baloney sandwich, you can also put anything you want to in it,
you can also call it anything you want to.  However, I reserve the right not
to eat it, as well as the right to think that you're slightly weird if it
doesn't contain any baloney.

If you offer baloney sandwiches to the public, for sale, they'd damn well
better have some baloney, or else you'd better have a pretty good reason
why they don't.

Who do you know that says that words don't mean anything?  The question is
just what they do mean.  I think that what they mean is a matter of consensus,
rather than a matter of what some expert or some revealed law says they
mean.  Words, and values, and morals are all a product of the experience of
every generation of human beings since the first proto-humans first started
calculating the phases of the moon, or burying their dead, or making maps,
or talking, or whatever they did that made them human.

                                      Chris Morrison
                                      CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
No doubt I completely misunderstood the entire thread of your statement,
and what I am saying will make no sense to anyone.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 11:05:24 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bad v. Harmful
              11 Sep 1992 09:13:11 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>

KAT:

I have been thinking about your "hostage" question, and I have to say
that I am not sure what the answer is.  If they were to ask me if
I were a Christian, I would have to say yes, no matter the cost, since
to do otherwise is a denial of my Lord.  I would like to believe that
I would admit to being an American, but as it is not my primary
allegience, I am not comfortable saying that I would certainly do
so in a situation of utmost danger.

In essence, admitting my citizenship would be the right thing to do,
but I am not certain I could overcome the temptation to do otherwise.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:30:11 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

>I think that many homosexual people are immoral, for a couple of reasons.
>First, many homosexuals endanger their health by doing things which are
>unsafe (in particular, I am thinking of promiscuity).

I have no problem with this statement, however, I think that the
there are more heterosexual people who are immoral on the count
of promiscuity, because there are more of them.

>Second, I think
>that many homosexuals (though not necessarily ALL) have psychological
>problems which are only made worse by their lifestyle.

On this concept, I think that this has nothing to do with a person's
morality.  I have had psychological problems that were in no way
related to my sexuality--do they make me immoral?

I think that I just question your definition of immorality.

j.b.
>--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:53:26 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: A correction to Andy on the Environment

>>Corn producers don't eat/sell their seed corn when the price goes up;
>
>Actually, the hybrid seeds used by American corn farmers cannot be
>used as seed corn.

Perhaps there's a reason why Andy used the word "producer" and not
the word "farmer".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: Heikki@mac125147.oulu.fi
Subject: Re: Interest Rates
Reply-To: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
Organization: pstl/University Of Oulu
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:21:12 GMT

In article <POLITICS%92091112032472@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU> Kerry
Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>KAT:
>
>What's going on in Sweden?  There must be a *reason* for the jump.
>Do you happen to know?
>
>--Missy P 2 B
>
Well Finland put its currency on floating postions and it does not have
a fixed exchnage rate, that resulted initially a devaluation of Finnish
Mark by some 15-16 %. Then everybody started to expect the same from Sweden.

The central bank there did not want to do it and put up a fight with
VERY high interest rates.

On the 14th (today) the EC currencies have been changing their values.
Lire has been devaluated by 3.5 % and others revaluated by the same amout and
the German interest rates have gone a bit down.

regards,

Heikki Jussila, 
University of Oulu, Research Institute of Northern Finland
Email: hjussila@phoenix.oulu.fi or pstl-hj@finou.oulu.fi


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:58:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

On Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:51:56 EDT K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> said:
> You can go Iran.  I'll even arrange for a passport for you.
No, I will exercise my right as a participating member of society and
try to change the rules, most of which you mention were handed down not
by a democratically elected legislature but by a nine-man oligarchy.
Thanks anyway.

> --KAT
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:55:11 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

Michael:

Since the churches began both the public and private school systems,
I think it is a bit presumptious of you to believe that the Founders
intended to create an educational system devoid of God.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:20:24 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>


Yes, Travis, private employers too.

Title VII, section 703(a) says that it is unlawful for an employer....

"to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise
to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...."

>> To refuse to do so is discriminatory, and violates equal protection.
>>
>> Jamie
>
>Jamie, do separate-sex bathrooms in public buildings violate equal
>protection???

No.


>I don't think that the 14th Amendment or any other Amendment ever
>was meant to preclude the state from keeping a moral society.

They certainly weren't. They were intended to make our society
MORE moral. Equality before the law is a part of our political
morality, enshrined in law.

>To most Americans (don't let the pink triangle fool you), homosexuality
>is grossly immoral--you can hear it from Jerry Falwell, or you can
>read it on the bathroom wall.

The day that I take lessons in morality from Jerry Falwell, kill me.

If most Americans have some good argument that homosexuality is
immoral, then laws discriminating against homosexuality might pass
muster. But until that day, equal protection applies even to
homosexuals. Unless you can think of some good reason that it
doesn't?

>The 14th as well as the ninth gives you the right to ADVOCATE legal
>homosexuality, but not to practice it.

That's just silly. The 14th amendment says nothing about advocacy.
It's about equal protection, due process, and one or two other things.
Can you explain why you think that the ninth or 14th amendments are
about advocacy?

>Also, the Bill of Rights is not totally limited to the federal
>government.  If you notice, only the First and Tenth Amendments mention
>Congress.  The others are in the passive voice, applying to both levels
>of government.

Uh, yeah. So, I forget, who said that they applied only to the fed?

>I am wondering as to the legitimacy of the Civil War Amendments them-
>selves.  How can a military-imposed government take the place of an
>elected legislature?  Could people representing the Southern states
>have sued to regain their seats in Congress??  Because if not, then
>the 13th thru 15th Amendments are invalid.  And if so, why didn't they?
>
>I believe, but barely, that the C.W. Amendments are legit, but I would
>like further information.

I'll leave this to the history czars.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:24:54 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Checkoff Hoax

Jamie:
Thanks for the info.

>"I'm more like Harry Truman." "No you aren't, I am."

And, just for fun, according to the latest TNR, Bush voted for Dewey.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:25:39 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New York Senate Race

Chris:

Though I doubt it really matters to you, I am not a Puritan. I *might*
be considered a Pilgrim, but ultimately, I am an Anabaptist Christian.

At work, I wear nice clothes and a nametag.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:26:40 EDT
From:         Janet Perry <JPERRY@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence
              14 Sep 1992 14:16:10 -0400 from <KILBURN@WVSVAX.WV NET.EDU>

Hi Kerry,

I agree that todays teachers put up with more discipline problems than
before.  It wasn't just the teachers in my school that were dedicated to
our education, it was the parents, too.  They had this crazy idea that if
you got a decent education you might be able to do something other than
ironing shirts for someone, picking cotton or hauling hay.  But our
teachers also had to deal with kids with no shoes, dad (or mom) getting
drunk and beating the kids, no money for lunch (everyone at my school got
a hot lunch no matter what, I suspect a conspiracy by the teachers) and,
yes, we had drugs at my school.  But drugs cost money and few of us had
any.  I know now that we were all pretty poor but we all got along.  But
more than that, we were made to feel special and that learning was fun.
I guess that my point is: private schools don't have a monopoly on being
able to educate.  Those without children or who choose not to use public
schools still benefit from other children going to school. (It is cheaper
to educate than it is to jail).

In my opinion, giving vouchers to families who choose to send their children
to private schools will further dichotomize our society, giving more to
those who already have a lot and diminishing the prospects for those who
can't afford private schools for their children to become productive citizens.

--Janet (on her soapbox again)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 10:32:12 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: KAT is bad if and only if Jimbo is harmful

Hi Jamie:

What are the terms of probation?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:08:09 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Interest Rates
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:48:09 EDT Jamie said:
>But in any case, KAT is right that Bush wants interest rates
>to be really low. By now maybe he's given up, but low interest
>rates looked to be one way to give the economy a shove. Conventional
>wisdom says that in the long run, a shove like that will be worse
>than the recession, but on the other hand conventional wisdom in
>economics said the recession would be over now.

But while interest rates might help the economy, wouldn't they
weaken the dollar on the international market even more than
current rates?

Mac "Sitting on a 10.5%/30-year mortgage, drooling @ the
     Fannie Mae rates of 6.85%/15 and 7.35%/30" Phil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:17:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: little answer

>From: Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
>
>        i see.  so my homosexual employers can fire me, any day, simply
>        because they find heterosexual sex disgusting, and do not
>        want an employee who engages is such apalling and just plain
>        WRONG behavior.  if this were to happen, and i ended up
>        unable to cover my living expenses, i can at least rest assured
>        that my rights hadn't been abridged, because i don't have a
>        right to keep my job, just because i'm good at it.

Exactly.  Since you have no right to force someone to enter into a contract
with you (including an employment contract), your employer can fire you for
whatever reason he chooses whenever he chooses, provided that he doesn't
violate any of the terms of the original employment contract in doing so.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:26:49 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Alleged Overpoulation (was Re: let's rephrase the question)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Andrew:
>In article <POLITICS%92091011494035@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,
>KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes:
> > Dunstan is right.
> >
> > Population is not the problem.  And it is even less of a problem in
> > the United States, where the population growth has remained below
> > replacement level since 1972.
> >
> > We aren't having too many children; we are having too few.
> >
> > --Missy P 2 B
>
>According to my handy-dandy CIA World Fact Book of 1991, the birth rate
>for the US in 1991 was 15 births / 1000  while the death rate was 9 / 1000.
>
>Have you any citation for your claim?
>
>
>						Andrew MacRae
>						(yawn, that was a nice nap)


I thought the birth rate was pretty constant - one each.

D
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:24:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Clinton Mailing List

Wow!  That's the third.  Thank you all very much for that information.
The lists seem to be located at MARIST.  Translated from bitnet lingo
that is Marist College in Poughkeepsie, which is nearby me (somebody
probably got fired for designating a node by a name that was readily
understandable and didn't include the type of computer used).

Anyway, I will get on both, and my sysop in Saratoga Springs will pound
the table a little more when he sees how many storage blocks I have
used up.

Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:50:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Is homosexuality immoral?

jasonz:

the bible can be viewed as a reasonable guide for morality when
approached reasonably, that is, through reason.  and to do so, one
must realize that it is a document written by a number of different
people for a number of different agendas, reflecting the morality
of the day.

however, many appeals to the bible as a guide for morality are NOT
reasonable, nor are they reasoned.  they are simply the blind
acceptence of every word as an "eternal" and "timeless" truth
(dispite the fact that the document is, indeed, very much set in
its own time).  this is using the bible as a guide through faith,
not reason.

any person who is in the second category who uses the bible as a
basis for the condemnation of homosexuality should also be prepared
to take any child who disobeys her/his parents to be stoned to death
in the public square.

if you think that that is a bit extreme, then you obviously think
that what is considered moral has changed, and should take this into
account in other situations as well.

brni
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, 10 Sep 1992 10:23:06 -0400
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

>>Tell ya' what.  Pick an AIDS case, oh just any one of 'em.  Trace the chain
>>ALLLLLLLLLLLL the way back to its origin.  Just what did you find?

>A government laboratory?

That just goes to show you how sick some people are; imagine that...
sleeping with a government laboratory... B)

>>---Robert
>Dave

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU