HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Subject: Re: Doomed...Doomed...Doomed...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:31:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.062321.62109@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes...
>In article <4NOV199209140199@utkvx3.utk.edu>, drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Ste
>ve) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.043731.138233@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (
>PAUL N. RITTER) writes...
>>As long as you people stick to this rhetoric and don't give the new
>>administration a chance to prove it wrong, we're never going to be
>>able to unite to fix this country.  Did you bother to watch Clinton's
>>acceptance speech?
>  No, I didn't see ALL of it. I get a sour stomach every time I see his face.

Paul is, obviously, another informed voter........NOT!  Just another 
uneducated twit who thinks he knows everything.....(sigh, I'm bored)
From: chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Rush Limbaugh via Internet?
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:41:13 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@npdiss1.StPaul.NCR.COM (Charles Rissmeyer)
Organization: StPaul

Does anyone know what Rush's Compuserv ID is, and how do you address it
from Internet for those of us not on Compuserv?

 
Charles (Chuck) Rissmeyer    KE0VG
(612) 638-7669  (VP 652-7669) -  charles.rissmeyer@StPaul.NCR.COM
NCR - An AT&T Company             NCR  CCS-PM&S NPD St. Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mconners@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael R Conners)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:02:34 GMT



     "There is nothing lower on the evolutionary scale than a white male"
 The above quote was made in a classroom by Anita Hill. Source: American
Spectator, March 1992 issue.

     Anita has also hired a public relations agent and a speakers bureau. She
takes in $10,000 per speech. In the month of April, 1992 Anita received
$21,000 in speakers fees. Source: Washington Times, 4/2/92.
-- 
:  Michael R. Conners              : "Beware of all enterprises that require :
:  THE Ohio State University       :  new clothes."                          :
:  College of Business             :               - Henry David Thoreau     :
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58372 ca.politics:9373 ba.politics:6796 misc.headlines:6926
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.headlines
Subject: Seeking phone number for Clarinet
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:46:11 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I believe that Clarinet is a company that distributes wire service
news stories in electronic form.  I would like to be able to look
for some UPI and AP stories they carried about 2.5 years ago.  Can
anyone provide me a phone number to contact them?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
does lethal injection...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58806 ca.politics:9426
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: What to do about Colorado
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:36:54 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <13079@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Measure 9 was seriously flawed because of how far it sought to
> go in preventing homosexual promotion by the government, so seriously
> that many conservatives I know up there had grave misgivings about it.
> Even I had might have voted against it, if I had been in Oregon.

  What a stinking hypocrite. Don't ever try to parade around with
your "I'd defend homosexuals, I just don't want them to legislate
morality" ruse again. Measure 9 was utterly about legislating morality
and if you would have voted for it, you have no credibility at
all.
  You're sick Clayton. Sick. Sick. Sick.

> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> The Physician Assisted Death Initiative failed.  Term limits for Congressmen
> passed.  If only we could have combined the two... two terms, and a doctor
> does lethal injection...

  I'd vote for this, and place your name in nomination forthwith.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58047 alt.politics.libertarian:1588 misc.legal:19558
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,misc.legal
Subject: Impeachment
Keywords: law, Constitution, Supreme Court
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:06:26 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov5.000014.25877@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>For Justices, it simply says that they "shall hold their offices during
>good behavior."  That means whatever Congress wants it to mean.  A
>Justice can't appeal his impeachment.

Hypothetically.  We'll find out for sure when the Supreme Court rules
on the case of Judge "appropriately named" Nixon sometime this year.

>It was fun and easy, but it wasn't necessarily accurate.  Judicial
>review is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution; many people thought
>it was implicitly in there, but not all did.  

Who didn't?  It was pretty clear to everyone at the time that judicial
review was an inherent power of the judicial branch.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58132 alt.politics.usa.misc:533 alt.politics.elections:22589
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: [t.p.drugs] total votes for all candidates
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:41:13 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

[ are these results real? ]

A repost from talk.politics.drugs:

From: tjj@thumper..bellcore.com (J Tim Jordan)
Subject: total votes for all candidates
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:22:41 GMT
Reply-To: tjj@thumper.UUCP (J Tim Jordan)
Organization: MRE

u p BC-US-Pres-SumAll     11-04 0158
^BC-US-Pres-SumAll,100<
^11-04-92 05:11,<
^By The Associated Press=
           Here are the latest nationwide vote totals for all candidates on
the ballot in the race for president with 95 percent of the
nation's precincts reporting.<
           Bill Clinton, Dem 41,364,481 - 43 percent
           George Bush, GOP (i) 36,268,903 - 38 percent
           Ross Perot, Ind 18,153,296 - 19 percent
           Andrew Marrou, Oth 64,328 - 0 percent
           Ron Daniels, Oth 16,086 - 0 percent
           Howard Phillips, Oth 11,475 - 0 percent
           Lenora Fulani, Oth 8,446 - 0 percent
           Bo Gritz, Oth 6,813 - 0 percent
           John Hagelin, Oth 3,154 - 0 percent
           None of These, Oth 2,193 - 0 percent
           Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 1,679 - 0 percent
           Honest Jim Boren, Oth 923 - 0 percent
           James Mac Warren, Oth 848 - 0 percent
           John Yiamouyiannis, Oth 507 - 0 percent
           Earl Dodge, Oth 466 - 0 percent
           Isabell Masters, Oth 375 - 0 percent
           J. Quinn Brisben, Oth 185 - 0 percent
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,tx.politics,alt.politics.bush
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative? 
Summary: 60's <=> 90's
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:36:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.021714.506@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)                        writes...
>In article <1992Nov9.055700.6470@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>In article <BxAHHH.2u5@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>Funny, this is the same drivel that the press tried to sell the American
>people on when George Bush rased taxes in 1990 and Pete Wilson raised taxes
>in 1991. The result of both tax increases, and indeed all tax increases
>throughout 20th century history, was to increase the deficit.
>
I thought it was the spending that accompanied the tax increase.

>More and more conservatives are giving up on government altogether as a vehicle
>for positive change. When you veiw the government as the problem and not
>the solution, you are not likely to be overly concerned with its fiscal health.
> 
This is an interesting trend, because it is exactly what happened to
the democratic party in the late 60's. I guess too much success for one
party will temporarily destroy that party (ie. Democrats winning 7 out
of 9 elections 32'-64'. Republicans winning 5 out of 6  68'-88').

>The interesting question is this: will Ronald Reagan get the credit for the
>collapse of communism in America or with the credit go to whomever is on

why not give the credit to Gorbechev (spelling?)?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:59:48 GMT

In article <6ViqTB1w165w@wabworld.atl.ga.us> anonymous@wabworld.atl.ga.us writes:
>dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us (Dan Hartung) writes:
>
>> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>> >OH *MY* **GOD**!!  God save us from Socialism.
>> 
>> For years Clinton was "too conservative" for the Democratic party.
>> And now he's a radical leftist?  Get a clue.
>
>
>He bent.  He waffled.  He did what it took to get elected.  Not difficult 
>for a man of no character, I'd presume.

Mr. Anonymous talking about Bush, but he got the result wrong.  Must
be a slow newsfeeder.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58231 alt.politics.clinton:15849
From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Caution: objects in election are closer than they appear
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:33:51 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <!D==Qt-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>Cornell Kinderknecht writes:
>|> 
>|> It's interesing that many people were wanting Congressional term
>|> limitations yet very few people exercised their power of limiting
>|> incumbent terms with their vote.
>
>I heard the networks make this comment as well.  I think you have to
>look at the situation deeper to understand what happened.  Without
>term limits, the incumbent has the overwhelming advantage in both
>the primaries and the general election.  Oftentimes, opposition to
>the incumbent is weak simply because noone wants to run in a race
>that they are sure to lose.  As a result, we end up with candidates
>that many people don't want, but given the choice, they stick with
>the incumbent because he probably is the lesser of evils.  Term
>limits opens things up by periodically creating competitive races.
>I think term limits will help improve our government, and lord knows
>it needs improving.

On NPR, one commentator described it as "Stop me before I vote again!"

My personal belief is that most people in favor of term limits really mean
"there should be term limits on all those *other* reps, but I want to be
able to keep voting for mine, since they bring home the bacon.  Having
a senior rep/senator is advantageous, as they know the ins and outs of
the system, and can, as a result, more effectively serve their constituents
(after all, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is about as far from reality as
you can get).  The key word in that last sentence is "can", which is far
different from "will".  The real problem with incumbency is, of course, that
the power derived from that seniority is likely to corrupt.  Oftentimes
the constituents really don't know what shenanigans their rep/senator is
up to (how many of us track our rep/senator's voting/attendence/spending
records?).  The problem is, they don't care, so long as it
doesn't cost them anything (or at least that they don't perceive it as such).
Voters don't think "what a crud - he got us millions for a new bypass, but
it drove up the deficit by millions," but rather "Congress has driven up
the deficit, the cruds, but at least our rep is good, since he got us
money for that new bypass."

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I was 25,
 but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot." - Andy Rooney
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58357 talk.politics.mideast:21884
From: ifaz706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:27:56 GMT
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <1992Nov5.151831.25497@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> 
> After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
> cities:
> 		Little Rock, Arkansas
> 		Bagdad, Iraq
> 
> Think about it.


	Yeap, the people of Arkansas finally got rid of Clinton,
	while the people of Iraq will enjoy 4 more blessed years
	under Saddam's supervision. 

                                    {:-)

Noam
From: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: ==> YES!
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:44:58 GMT
Reply-To: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard)
Distribution: world
Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute

U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
> ...
> |   CONGRATULATIONS! TO PRESIDENT-ELECT CLINTON
> |     and
> |   VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT GORE
> ...
> |   May we now help "Put People First For A Change!"

Right on!

Although I am considerably to the left of the administration-elect, I
would point out the following.  They will give back the sorely needed
qualities of leadership, competence, and, especially, caring to the
U.S. administration.  Gore's acceptance speech was particularly good.

An anecdote.
A friend of mine was doing research in Antarctica last year.  Gore was
down there on a invetigative tour, interviewing the scientists to see
how their projects were going and better understand their needs.  My
friend talked to Gore and later recounted to me how totally on top of
the facts Gore was.  He knew what people were working on, why, and what
the ramifications of the research was.  In short, my friend found him
to be refreshingly intelligent and compentent and kind of person we would
want to be our political leader.

Dennis Allard
allard@isi.edu
===================================================================
U.S. law prohibits you and me from travelling to Cuba or trading
with people there.  The U.S. economic boycott of Cuba harms people.
===================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: zeus@vxcrna.cern.ch
Subject: TRICKLE UP ECCONOMICS (Uppercase mandatory due to Clinton victory)
Summary: Who gives a sideways fuck about the poor except contortionists?
Keywords: Cupcake
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:35:26 GMT

Announcing a new ecconomic theory! Trickle up ecconomics!

As everyone knows the way to help a group in society is to give large
amounts of money to other people.

Up until now everyone has been very keen to help the poor and disadvantged,
naturally this means giving all the money to the very rich.

Question is, who gives a toss about the poor? Sod them! It's the rich
people who matter.

So lets give all the money to the poor so it can trickle up to help
the rich and deserving.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot came in SECOND
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:09:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: brock@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bradley W. Brock)
NNTP-Posting-Host: g210b-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <2782@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
> Final results from Utah:
> 
> Bush    320,559 - 45%
> Perot   202,605 - 29%
> Clinton 182,850 - 26%
> 
> Why has this not been reported anywhere?  I find it significant that
> Perot came in second in _any_ state.

Even the front page of yesterday's NYTimes (11/5) said that Perot finished 3rd  
in every state.
--
Bradley W. Brock, Department of Mathematics
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology  | "Resist not evil.. Love your enemies."
brock@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu       | -Jesus of Nazareth
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Final election tallies??
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:36:44 GMT

pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>Georgia went to Clinton-Gore EARLY in the night. Arizona was a tossup, though.
>
>BZZT.  Mark Wilson reported (previous post) that actual vote count gave
>Georgia to Bush.  The media muffed that one.

Mark Wilson muffed it.  Clinton won Georgia.  Wilson has an excuse, though.
The partial vote count Wednesday morning had Bush leading.  What's your
excuse?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Celebration in the Streets
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:40:36 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:


>After Clinton was elected, there were celebrations in the streets in two
>cities:
>		Little Rock, Arkansas
>		Bagdad, Iraq

>Think about it.

Isn't it interesting that Saddam Hussein, the man George Bush compared
to Hitler, will very likely keep his job longer than Bush himself --
which is more than you can say for 10 million Americans.


Keith
-----
    "It's a funny old world." -- Margaret Thatcher
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:45:38 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <9211112205.AA06157@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>       As part of a impromptu research project, I'd like to know what
>   YOU thought the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic ) event
>   was, between 1970 to 1980.
>

Ooh, such a list: Kent State, Watergate, US Embassay take-over, fall
of Saigon, the Paris accords ending the Vietnam War (or at least the
active use of US troops), the '72 oil shock, the birth of disco....


In fiscal year 1991, the government agencies classified as secret a
total of 7,107,017 documents.  This marks the first time that the
total number of reported classification decisions in a year is a
palindrome.		-- 1991 Information Security Oversight Office
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58235 alt.politics.elections:22668 alt.politics.perot:5170
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Perot came in SECOND
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:27:15 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Sun Microsystems

Final results from Utah:

Bush    320,559 - 45%
Perot   202,605 - 29%
Clinton 182,850 - 26%

Why has this not been reported anywhere?  I find it significant that
Perot came in second in _any_ state.

Btw, Perot was close to a second place finish in Maine.  Imagine GHWB
coming in third in one of his many home states:

Clinton  261,859 - 38.9%
Bush     207,122 - 30.7%
Perot    205,076 - 30.4%

--f2

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59555 ca.politics:9506 ba.politics:6992
From: SMTP@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject: Bill "STOGIE" Clinton. HEHEHEHEHE!
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:20:18 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA27869; Sun, 8 Nov 92 13:21:05 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA06721; Sun, 8 Nov 92 13:21:03 -0800
X-Resent-Message-Id: <9211082121.AA06721@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0143; Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:23:59 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2007; Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:23:58 MST
X-Resent-Date:  Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:20:59 MST
X-Resent-From: "Broward "The Sceptic" Horne" <GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu>
X-Resent-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet
X-Received: from IDBSU by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2002; Sun, 08 Nov 92 14:20:19 MST
X-To: <GCTHORNE@IDBSU.BITNET>


      For almost a year, I been candidate watching.
      Saw almost all the Democratic debates.
      Saw all the ads.
      Saw the presidential and vice debates.
      Just about everything.
      Even a 1 hour special about Clinton's history in Arkansas.

      But not ONCE did I see Clinton smoking a CIGAR!
      Until last night, as he strutted about a golf course.

      Now, I'm willing to bet here.
      I'm willing to bet that at LEAST 90% of Clinton voters never
      saw a CIGAR CHOMPING CLINTON!

      Probably he wanted to retain his "political viability". :)

      " Jesus, Hilary, this jogging crap is killing me.
        Can't we stop now? "

      " After the election, dear.  You can get rid of the girdle
        then, too "

      And how 'bout that NAFTA decision, heh?
      Sayonara, Trade Unions.  " Jettisoning dead-weight, Captain! "

      And how 'bout that HIGH energy level?  Hmmm.
      I suggest the media might want to do some nose close-ups.

      Yes, I highly suspect that America bought a package, but
      the contents are NOT as advertised.
      Maybe we can appeal to the FDA.

      Yo, just remember, y'all Clinton supporters.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60067 ca.politics:9565 ba.politics:7113
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:14:41 GMT


In article <Bx898r.5rD@xcluud.sccsi.com>, 
gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com (Glynne Tolar) said:

> I know, you'll do what many do, blame it on the republicans.
> Check the constitution and see who has the power over the
> budget, congress.

And check to see who has the power to veto any and all legislation
that the Congress proposes, including budgets.  Then check the veto
records of Presidents Reagan and Bush and see how many times they
exercised this power with regard to proposed budgets.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60068 ba.politics:7114 ca.politics:9566