HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:16:23 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      no fly zone

Hi, y'all:
In and among the reports about Hurricane Andrew, a few pundits discussed
the no-fly zone now in operation in Iraq.  Because I had a tooth extracted
and was taking some very interesting pain killers, I don't remember who
said what.  But here's what they said :)

First, as though in answer to a question I posted last week, someone gave a
few details of a fairly recent increase in the nastiness S. H. has been
handing the Shi'ites.  The one specific I remember was something about
using fixed-wing aircraft beginning in July.  So maybe the timing on this
thing isn't totally capricious.

Second, several someones mentioned that the only folks who seem to be
supporting the current effort are the U.S., Great Brittain, France, and
Russia (I think).  And maybe Kuwait.  But other Arab countries, including
Saudi Arabia, aren't too thrilled.  Also mentioned was the lack of a
specific Security Council resolution (or agreement, or whatever) approving
of the no-fly zone and its enforcement.  We're just operating under
resolution 688 (if I got the number right) that says something about human
rights (anyone know more on this?).

Third, Mona Charen (sp?), I think it was, mentioned the lack of a specific
objective (other than keeping Iraqi planes out) and/or timetable for this
action.  How long do we keep it up?  What would constitute violation?  I
heard a kinda scary notion that, if S. H. brought ground troops into action
against the Shi'ites, the U.S. et al. would use military force against them
.

What the heck is going on here????

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:43:55 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Tenez la gauche
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

In my morning paper I read that, after Barbera's husband's
unsuccessful trip to Japan last year to try to help the US auto
industry sell cars there that GM have come up with an idea which might
help. They are going to try putting the steering wheel on the right.
Wow. How many Americans would consider driving right hand drive cars ?

That reminds me of a joke told to me by an American.

Q. Why did the Siamese twins go to Great Britain ?
A. So the other one could have a turn at driving.

For the record, the reason we drive on the left is so that when my
carriage passed yours on the highway, my postillion had his sword hand
nearest to yours should he try some dirty tricks. So we're right and
you're wrong. Nyah.

Dunstan.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:55:28 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      clarification for andy

Andy, I don't think I made the point I wanted to with regard to birth
control. I have two beautiful daughters that I love very much. I am also
divorced but nearly married (we have set the date, just waiting for it
to arrive) to a wonderful woman who has no desire to have children of
her own. She wishes that there was a female equivilent of a vasectomy
which would not require surgery. This would eliminate any unplanned
pregnancies due to birth control failure.

Also, can you explain how it is possible to have an unwanted pregnancy
prior to the fact? You totally lost me on that one.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:28:39 CDT
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Poll Time

   uh, missy, let's look at your numbers another way.

       49%               38%              10%

    legal all         legal but        illegal all
    the time          restricted        the time


   forgive me if i seem a bit slow on the uptake here, but exactly
how does this qualify as a cultural divide? it looks to me like a
cultural consensussomewhere around the most recent supreme court
decision (some relatively minor restrictions).

rtf
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:15:28 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>Jimbo:
>
>I wasn't going to mention this, but it's been typed in at least
>ten times now.  FOIST.  The word is FOIST.

Why are you telling me?  I was using the word 'hoist' because someone
(the original poster on the topic) used it, and I wanted to make fun
of them.  You know how I am...


--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:28:31 CDT
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      promise them anything for a vote

One of ghwb's main campaign themes has been "THOSE WORTHLESS B_____DS in
congress are responsible for the deficit because they refuse to balance
the budget. He then turns around and offers to rebuild an air force base
that was being considered for closing prior to its destruction and new
paybacks to the farming communities.

Where is this money going to come from? I think it would be cheaper to
close an already dismantled base than to choose another one. How will
selling a few planes help the economy in general? George is attempting
to buy the election and send the bill to congress. He will then chastise
them for their spending habits. Seems like a typical american presidential
election to me.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:44:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Changing topic?!?

>Because it is the fall out from a single state disintegrating, whereas
>Iraq/Kuwait was a simple case of invasion.

>Dunstan.

dunstan, do you really believe we went into irag JUST because of the invasion?
do you think that if oil were not a factor we would have responding as we did
or at all?

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:14:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: little answer to little question

Jason:

You're "right." (pun intended.)  The things KAT refers to as rights are
not rights at all, but merely things that it would be nice to have
(excepting military service, which is a duty, not a right.)

Good call.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 10:49:28 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>I guess what I'm trying to ask is a deeper question about what kinds of
>things folks like to hunt.  If, for example, I want to conserve eastern
>migratory songbirds, would making them legal to hunt work?  Would folks
>hunt flycatchers?  Seems that this strategy will work better for some
>species than others.  But I could be wrong :)

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.)

>>If there are enough to eat lots of pets in an area, there's enough
>>to allow long-term survival IF they aren't pushed out.
>
>Um, not necessarily.  One large-ish local population doesn't always work.

I think in terms of CA, which is islands of development in a sea of
wild, at least in mountain areas, and the mountains do dominate CA
geography.  (Some valleys aren't developed.)

>>Legalized hunting pushes poachers out if the money from hunting goes
>>to those neighbors.  Said neighbors then have a "no poacher"
>>incentive.  (Of course, the poachers can also pay, but then they don't
>>have a competitive advantage and enforcement can then tip the
>>balance.)
>
>What if the market demand for products is greater than the supply that can
>be sustained through legal harvesting?  I think this is probably what I was
>trying to ask :)

You mean "what happens when the potential profit is high?"  (We know
what happens when the market demand is greater than the supply; I
don't have a Jaguar because price is an allocation measure.)  It
depends on who gets the money.  If it goes to people who "produce"
elephants, they can spend it on protecting their production base and
increasing it.  If it goes to others or we assume that ALL elephant
producers are stupid ....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:17:50 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.

>I don't mean to meddle in your private life, and, of course, you don't
>have to answer, but have you been raped?  Or someone you are close to?
>Just wanting to know from whom these comments are coming.
>-Travis

  Oh, yes.  And if I were Missy, the first person I'd
open up to would be someone who has the experience,
sensitivity, perspective, and understanding about things
sexual that Travis obviously does.

                                  -Tim
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, 25 Aug 1992 15:23:06 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: School choice..say, what?!?!

Hi, Pam:
>  Can anyone please enlighten me on this issue of School Choice?
>Perhaps I am not understanding Bush's position on this issue
>correctly.

I'm not an expert, but I try to keep up with the School Choice stuff.
First, both Bush and Clinton have promoted school choice.  Clinton wants it
to apply only to public school (or maybe public and non-parochial private,
but I'm not sure); Bush wants it to apply to public and private, including
parochial, schools.  Bush's "GI bill for kids" gives parents whose combined
income is (fill in the blank -- one figure I read was below about $40K)
vouchers worth about $1000 per kid to facilitate said choice.  I don't know
the specifics of Clinton's proposal.

The basic premise put forward in favor of choice is that allowing parents
to decide which schools to use would establish competition among schools.
Competition, in turn, is supposed to stimulate schools to improve.

That premise has been argued against by lots of folks -- Al Shanker is one
(he's the head of either the AFT or the NEA -- I never can remember which).
At a minimum, the choice model would have to be accompanied by some changes
in how schools are administered.  And, of course, problems of access would
need to be addressed.  Finally, those who favor some kind of model that
would allow more folks to use private schools ignore the stats that
indicate that private schools aren't any more effective than public schools
when family background is taken into account.

You might have guessed I'm not real big on school choice :)  I'll let folks
on the other side present other views.

Good luck
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:13:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: What conference is this, anyway???

>I love it when you write like that.  My keyboard is soaked with the sweat
>of my quivering limbs.
                                                 _ __
                                                ' )  )
                                                 /--' _   _   _  __    :-{)
                                                /  \_(_)_(_)_(/_/ (_
                                                         _/
i love a man who can work up a good sweat.

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:15:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>> How ironic that poor little Adolph has been treated so shabbily.  When
>> compared to what we've done, he begins to look like Mother Theresa.
>>
> >---Robert

>Ok, another show of hands. whomever thinks Robert is the dumbest
>person on this list, reach for the sky.

>jcs

first i'd like to say, thank you robert. i was having problems deciding between
you and travis as to who was the dumbest. YOU WIN!

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:11:43 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

 *** Resending note of 09/03/92 15:37


 >According to Consumer Reports, by reducing administrative overhead in using
 >a single payer system, reducing the number of unneeded procedures, and
 >eliminating fraud, enough money would be saved to give everybody health care.
 >The short answer is it won't cost any more than it does now.

 Reducing the number of unneeded procedures?  The way it stands now, doctors
 are forced into having to perform unneeded tests/procedures or face a
 malpractice suit for failing to do so.  As for eliminating fraud it won't
 happen.  Perhaps the emphasis will shift but fraud will always be with us.

 >Under the Canadian system, any patient can see any doctor they want.  That
 >doctor may then refer them to a specialist, but they still have their choice
 >of who to see in that specialty.  The idea that you will be told which
 >doctor to use is a gross mischaracterization of a single payer system.

 Any doctor they want, or any doctor they want that is participating in the
 program?  This is much like our current HMO type insurance plans.  It's not
 uncommon to see the less successful practitioners on these lists.

 >All doctors will be in private practice.  They will simply receive payment

 Fine, but *must* they also be in government service?

 from the government according to a set schedule for services rendered,
 >instead of gouging you or your insurer for whatever they can get.

 As for private practice, your claims of gouging are mostly baseless.  With
 hospitals it may be true.



 >> equal rights for homosexuals.  This is just plain sick.
 >>

 >Yes, by all means, let's make them second class citizens.  How 'bout
 >denying them citizenship altogether.  That's a fine Christian attitude.

 I don't see how allowing homosexuals to work in child care or teach in our
 public schools is such a good thing.  I do not accept that conditioned
 tolerance of perverted behavior is in anyone's best interest.

 >> VOTE NO.  DEMAND THAT BOTH MAJOR PARTIES SUBMIT ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATES.

 >Well, we agree on something....
 >     todddddddddddd

 ---Robbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:21:11 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Youthful punks

 *** Resending note of 09/02/92 23:28

 >mandatory military service for every young person?  you ARE a sick pup.
 >i for one was NOT doing all those things that you accuse young folk of
 >during that year, and it is the utmost injustice to force a person into
 >a situation that they find ethically, physically and aesthetically
 >repulsive to attone for someone else's misdemeanors.  that is as repulsive
 >as saying that if a 13 year old kid steals a car, we should send all
 >kids who are 13 years old to jail, because if we don't, we know that
 >every one of them is going to do so as well.
 >brni

 Did I say mandatory military service?  I don't think so.  I said *military
 type* service.  I don't automatically see anything wrong with required
 military service, however.  Did I say that someone needed to atone for
 something?  I don't think so.  I said  "...repairing the loss of guidance
 and discipline...".  I don't see anything wrong with this either.

 Beyond your effort to misrepresent my comments I see something a little
 unsettling amid your ramblings.  There is a very definite chord of a
 vehemently anti-patriotic attitude throughout your whining.  Are we to
 understand that you find military (or other) service for your country
 somehow distasteful?  Are you enjoying the benefits of freedom at the
 expense of our dead patriots?  Are you BILL CLINTON?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:37:56 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Boing

Good heavens. A response from Sue Clark!

>From:         Sue Clark <SACLARK@UNMCVM.BITNET>

>> I can't wait to see Sue Clark's explanation.
>
>Explain what?  Polls?  Polls that are about as stable as a rollercoaster
>ride!  Polls that say one day Bush is only 5% behind and then say he is
>16% behind!  The path of Hurricane Andrew is more predictable than what path
>each days polls will be.  And besides Clinton is NOT in front of Bush by the
>same margin he was before the Republican convention, that was 30%.  Liberals
>dream to much.

Ah.
Well, actually, I didn't say that Clinton was ahead by AS MUCH.

Polls tell us what people are thinking nowadays. They change because
people's views change.
I thought that by telling us what your friend thought about the
GOP convention, you were trying to say that's what the average
person thought. If so, then either you were wrong, or the
average person is awfully fickle.

>As for the 'ordinary person'...what do you expect...an answer that says she
>has changed?  Get real.  She still knows the difference between the Republicans
>that *WERE NOT* laughing at her values and the Democrats representatives that
>were.  Her vote counts too.

Right, but it appears that most people don't agree with her. Most people
who thought about voting for Bush right after the GOP because they
were swayed by the presentation, came to their senses shortly
thereafter.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 09:59:31 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: i am so dismayed
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

brni:
>linda:
>
>the use and dissemination of jargon is key for deterritorialization.
>
>brni

Please could we eschew such obfuscation.

Dunstan
From: CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET (fred)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: I spell robert C-O-N-F-U-S-E-D
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:29:54 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Robert has done an excellent job of illustrating why I am turned off by
organized religion.

Robert quote #1: "The bible says that we should not murder. Killing an
intruder is not murder".

Robert quote #2: "Abortion is always murder but we could accept it in
cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother".

Situational ethics?

"I met her in a niteclub over on the lower east side
 I was workin' with my head down trying to keep the groove alive
 Why, why, why, why me?
 Fallin' like this is the very last thing I need.
If I had any sense you know I'd turn right around and leave"
 Why, Why, Why, Why me? - Delbert McClinton
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:09:58 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> You can think or read whatever you like, but your comments are common
> among people who think they can understand something they have never
> experienced.  No book can explain rape.  No fancy psychological
> theory can override the experiential fact that rapists and rape
> victims know that rape and sex have very little to do with each other.

> I'm not going to talk about this any more.

Since, Missy said she will not talk (er....write) about this
subject anymore, let me put in my two cents.

So according to this line of reasoning, people like Jerry
Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Bob Casey, Quayle,
Bush, Reagan, etc. should all shut up and let only woman
talk about abortion.  Come to think of it, according to this
line of logic, only aborted fetuses and woman who have undergone
abortion can/should speak to the ills/advantages of abortion.

I have never travelled at supersonic speed (that is I have
never "experienced" it) yet I teach that subject.

Go figure.

--KAT


--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:12:00 EDT
From:         the valley of the fuzz-tone guitar <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      some clues for Hansjorg: how to sign off

Hansjorg unburdens himself:
>please tell listserv that I want to be off the list.
>the whole chatting is rather unrealistic and full of "shit"

Now, now, I'm not going to tell you how to unsub unless you ask nicely.
And no putting quotation marks around your expletives, either.

>Hansjoerg Klein

Okay, okay, mebbe I'm in a pleased mood since I got my CD player fixed
and can finally listen to the Church's new disc, but I'll tell you
anyway:

to unsub, send the following message via interactive message (that's either
the send or tell function on your system, depending on the whims of your
site) to listserv@ohstvma (or listserv@ucf1vm, if you're subbed to that one):

signoff politics

Yes, that's listserv, you goob, the same exact goddamn way you signed up.
If your site for some reason doesn't permit interactive messaging between
nodes, you can send the line:

signoff politics

as the only line in the body of the text of an e-mail message to the listserv
at ohstvma or ucf1vm.  Yes, there's that listserv again.

And if that *still* doesn't work, you could maybe perhaps ask the listowner
to sign you off by sending mail to his account, rather than whine about it
to the list at large.

(For those of you playing at home, I'm not really bothered by this, this is
just my entry into the 'I can be cranky too' contest currently running.  I
hear the first prize is a date with the best flirt...:D )

Gary W. Olson                 "'J'amie 'G'. I want you,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   even though I know that I can't have you..."
69 days and counting down...   - Joe Jackson, "Jamie G."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:37:31 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Rape; violation, sex or whatever...

 *** Resending note of 08/31/92 16:24

 >................ other than to offer the platitude, as does Robert, that
 abortion is "murder." If there is no "victim," how can their be murder? ...

 No victim?  Recently, in the Oklahoma City area, a pile of victims was found
 burning in a field.  Of course, all the pro-abortion forces were appalled at
 this disgusting sight.  Why?  What's disgusting about burning discarded trash?

 They were disgusted because there were little fingers, toes and rib cages in
 the smoldering pile!  No victims?

 This society has lost all semblance of decency, morality and compassion.  The
 sooner someone flushes this toilet the better!

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU