HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:38:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: RE: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colora
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> From Robert
> Freedom from discrimination is not a right.

That is one of the most pernicious, and plain _wrong_ statements one
can make.  The entire history of the United States says (though
often ironically) that this view is wrong.

But I will give you this: at least you're up front about it.  Most of
the people who hold this view try to cover it up with a bunch of
outrageous lies about "special rights" and similar balderdash.  So
my hat's off to you for being honest enough to acknowledge that the
debate really _is_ about discrimination.

Best,
Peter
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:10:33 CDT
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Uncl: B/Hillary Clinton

From: sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet

Wellllllllll, the Clintons have decided to send Chelsea to *PRIVATE*
school, one of Washington's most exclusive - no less.

Quoting - "...after many family discussions and careful consideration.
           As parents, we believe this decision is best for our
           daughter...."

HA, no kidding!

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:33:46 EST
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio

Jenna, those women weren't dying.  None of them were suffering from a
terminal disease.  If they were, I would understand why they wanted to
die.

Evelyn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:22:03 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 17:05:23 GMT from "Carl M. Kadie" <kadie@EFF.ORG>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/04/93 11:12

From Carl
How do you feel about laws that protect people from discrimination in
housing and employment on the basis of religion?

From  Robert
Once again: I do not feel that government should force private entities to
parti ipate in government social exercises.  In government 'public' facilities
there is an obligation to provide a non-discriminatory environment.  The
government is not too proud to confiscate our money, so it should not be
too proud to provide us with equality of services.
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:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:24:00 EST
From:         bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      you put your right foot in, you put your right foot out...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>        You are using your NON-STANDARD definitions again. Let us use a
>dictionary, (why didn't we started here in the first place?) :

Actually, I provided a dictionary definition of fascism (a bit
different from the one you provided) in December, in response to a post
from Sam.  Caius probably just missed it or something..:

fascism - a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state
and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent
nationalism. (from the American Heritage Dictionary, 1980).

Gary W. Olson                 "When the moon is a cold chiseled dagger,
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU   sharp enough to draw blood from a stone.
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET            He rides through your dreams on a coach,
                               and the horses and the fence posts
                               in the moonlight look like bones."
                               - Tom Waits, "Black Wings"
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:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:02:30 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Quota laws, allegedly; and evidence

Hi again :)
Let's see if I can ascribe these accurately . . .

Jamie said:
>>>>Murder laws are put into place in order to socially engineer society
>>>>to prevent supposed wrongs that might occur. Agree or disagree?
Brett' replied:
>>>    No, they are there to punish offenders *after* the crime has been
>>> committed.
Jamie replied:
>>All laws are there to do that. Discrimination law too.
Brett' replied:
>        Nope.  Some discrimination laws are clearly meant to rectify
>"problems" for which there is no proof:
>
>        Laws that decree you have to rent to anyone who hands you a check.
>Clearly this is a pro-active law designed to prevent discrimination.  Yet what
>it does is assume that all landlords will discriminate if given the chance.

Brett', maybe I'm being really dense, but I truly don't understand the
distinction you're making here.  Let's say we have two laws:
        1.  murder is illegal
        2.  discriminating against potential renters is illegal

Now, how is the second any more pro- or re-active than the first?  It seems
to me that I can accurately describe the intent of *both* laws in two ways:
each is there to "punish offenders after the crime is committed"; or each
is there to "rectify a problem for which there is no proof."  That is, if
the anti-discrimination law "assume(s) that all landlords will discriminate
if given a chance", then the murder law equally assumes that all people
will murder if given a chance.

In practice, anti-discrimination laws allow someone to take action after a
crime has occurred.  The alleged perpetrator is innocent until proven
guilty, and the defendant must be able to prove that discrimination
occurred.  The threat of legal sanctions should act as a deterrent against
discrimination.  How is this any different from laws against murder?  You
can't charge someone before a murder has occurred.  You can't convict
someone without evidence.  And the threat of punishment should act as a
deterrent.

I hope I'm expressing my confusion accurately :)  I really do want to
understand your point!

Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:58:52 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: reagan and clinton

According to my local paper, Jonathan, this has already been
reported in Newsday.

      Jamie

NB, my local paper is not very accurate. For a newspaper, I mean.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:56:00 ET
From:         "Ellen.Edgerton" <EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      Homosexuality and nature/nurture

Hi Anjani, and it's a most appropriate post.  Nice to hear a voice of
reasoned argument here, whatever your opinion on the issues.


Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 12:24:00 EST
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: the biBle

> Date:         Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:51:18 -0600
> From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: the biBle
> Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu
> To:           "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020>
>
> Once again, it seems relevant to point out that the list POLITICS is not
> for the purposes of religious prozlytizing, or for promoting the Bible as
> a text with political effacy. It seems to this insignificant individual
> that this religion business is, as is sexual preference and other areas,
> a matter of personal choice. To use religion, or religious beliefs, to
> buttress political arguments is to subvert both the rules and spirit of
> the list, and in addition, is quite annoying in that religious belief does
> NOT constitute, to my mind, a base for political argument. VMS

   Now we cannot write about the Middle East, the Balkans, and abortion,
   and homosexuality, the ACLU suing towns with religious displays and
   so on.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:00:42 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              4 Jan 1993 16:42:28 +0100 from BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
              <POLITICS@OHSTVMA>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: re: Colorado boycott
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/04/93 09:52

From Sam
I thoght AIDS originated in Africa among heterosexuals. It started
spreaing among gays only in Europe and North America. But in Africa,
from here the emidemic comes from, most of the victims are heterosehual.

From  obert
As you've just stated, it made its inroads into America among the
homosexual population.  As for Africa, it is more prevalent in heterosexuals
partially due to sexual practices among the women, the use of abrasive
preparations in the vagina for instance.

Whether AIDS actually started in the hetero population, I have my doubts.
Would the average African participant admit homosexuality/bisexuality?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Jamie on commercial speech
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:24:17 GMT

So sorry I'm so late with the mail, but you know vacations...

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:11:27 EST Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> I am in favor of freedom of speech for Nazis, Stalinists, cat-torturers,
> Rush Limbaugh, fast food restaurants, Freudians, Libertarians,
> Alabamans, and every other odious ideologue I can think of.
>
> Wow. Controversial, huh?

I'll claim my birthright (?) as a native Alabaman, and take this
opportunity of proffered free speech to issue forth a question.

Jamie claims to support freedom of speech for 'fast food restaurants'.
This seems consistent with other things that I know him to have said
at various times in the past, but I would like to explore this a bit
further.

Jamie, do you support the right of sellers of products to make
true claims about the benefits of those products?  Or do you endorse
the position that commercial speech (defined, I suppose, as speech
associated with attempts to buy or sell a product) ought to be 
treated differently under the law?  Or some other, intermediate,
position?

--Jimbo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:38:47 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> Who cares?  A lot of people here care:  those of us who care about life
> and hate to see it thrown away.
>
> Evelyn Duncan
>

Who's throwing it away?

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:29:32 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Organization: Institute of Computer Science, Jagellonian University Cracow
Subject:      righ-left contest
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              93 10:56 am

My definition:
>> right - as much free market as possible
>> left  - as much state intervention as "necessary"

Ramon replies:
>>         You can use it all you want to, but it has been shown here quite a
>> few times that historically, academically, linguistically, in current
>> political theory and even in common usage, THAT IS NOT THE ACCEPTED MEANING
>> OF THOSE WORDS. That is only a current coincidence, and not a definitory
>> relationship.

I believe those words HAVE some meaning. Maybe not precise, but they must have
some meaning common to all speakers.

I also believe those words HAVE the meaning I have stated above. The dispute
over economic freedom and state intervention has always been A REAL PROBLEM,
influencing our personal freedom and living standards. It is not a "current
coincidence". They are also in common usage in my country and political
literature (in several languages) I read.

I also believe The Right has some simple, clear and convincing evidence to
support it position, and The Left (after all leftist regimes have been
discredited) tries to introduce confusion and misunderstanding into the
terminology.

Some of the subscribers stated they disagreed with my definitions, they also
stated their friends disagreed, but no other definitions have been submitted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all:

Please define THE RIGHT (rightist, right-wing etc)
              THE LEFT  (letfist, left-wing)
I would like to see simple, clear definition. not a "you know common usage",
"1024 experts say this", "you don't understand this", "Humty-Dumpty theories"
Just tell me what are those terms, how do you undersatand them, or I will
assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

Simple statements and short academic disseratation will be appreciated.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:08:50 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Kevorkian Sets Sights on Ohio

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:26:10 EST Evelyn Duncan said:

>>Anyway, Evelyn's criticism should be against the state of
>>Ohio not Kevorkian.

>As for the state of Ohio, a number of leading lawmakers here (from the
>governor on down) have gone on record of opposing Kevorkian.  The
>Summit County prosecutor, Lynn Slaby, has said that he will charge
>Kevorkian with practicing without a license if Kevorkian holds
>consultations with people.

What I meant was that you should direct your criticism at the
state of Ohio for not making assisted suicide a crime.

>As for Kevorkian himself, if his patients are ONLY the terminally ill,
>then I have no quarrel with him.  But, I'm worried about the mentally ill,
>the alcoholic or drug addicted, or teenagers who have decided to kill
>themselves.  Shouldn't they be helped through their problems instead of
>helping them to kill themselves?

You are correct that some (if not most or all) of Kevorkian
patients were NOT terminally ill.  On the other hand none of
them were "mentally ill, alcoholic, drug addicted, or teenagers
wanting to commit suicide" either.

One more thing: I can *see* why someone would argue against
ALL forms of assisted suicides, but I cannot *see* why you
would limit it to people who are terminally ill.  I think a
more logical distinction would be people who can give
full and informed consent and are suffering from severe
mental and physical pain with no cure in sight.

>>--KAT
>Evelyn

--KAT
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:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 11:56:00 EST
From:         bone machine <SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET>
Subject:      the bald headed senators are splashing in the blood...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Brett', responding to KAT:
>>I like to hear objections to this move based on principles and
>>the fact that it might violate the Constitution, not things
>>like, "...well, if the votes are Democratic, then it must be
>>a bad decision."
>        Who has made that charge?

Numerous congressional republicans, if I recall the NPR report I heard
correctly.  I'll have to go get a newspaper to scope the names, but the
situation is something like this:

By Article I, Sections 2-3 of the Constitution, only States are to send
representatives and senators.  This is currently taken to mean that only
congressbeings from the 50 States are allowed to vote on the floor, official-
like.  Congressbeings from territories, including American Samoa, Puero
Rico, and so on, are not allowed to vote on the floor, but do currently work
and vote in various committees and subcommittees.

What is being proposed is that these particular Congressbeings be allowed to
vote in the "Committee of the Whole", that is, the whole group of either
representatives or senators, as the case may be.  This "committee" does, I
think, do the final work on the bills before they are officially submitted
for an official vote, which the territorial Congressbeings can't participate
in.  (Presumably, the Committee of the Whole can also keep bills from
being submitted, thus the power of increasing the Democratic share in this
group).

Congressional Republicans charge that this proposal would violate the
Constitution, as it would give the territorial Congressbeings a vote on all
bills submitted, and thus give them a de facto "official" vote.

(I know all that is vague above - anyone who can correct the grosser
deficiencies in the above paragraphs is welcome to do so).

So, is this Constitutional?  Or not?  I'm undecided on that question right
now, mostly because this is a rather new area of constitutional debate for
me.  Comments?  Thoughts?

(background noise: sounds of republicans going to the basement, unlocking the
file cabinet that had been locked for twelve years, and pulling out their
copies of the Constitution...:) ) [*]

>>Same thing for DC statehood.
>        Give it back to Maryland.

Give Maryland back to the Marylandish...(aiiee).

>>--KAT
>Brett'

Gary W. Olson, who doesn't see
   what's so hard to understand
   about Jamie's arguments on
   the provability of certain
   thoughts existing               "Like private parts to the gods are we;
SWEDE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU        they play with us for their pleasure."
SWEDE@DRYCAS.BITNET                 - Blackadder II

[*] this utterly unwarranted cheap shot brought to you by Crelm Toothpaste.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:37:44 -0500
Comments:     <Parser> W: Invalid RFC822 field - ">From Robert". Rest of header
              flushed.
Comments:     Resent-From: SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: school daze

From Dan
Can we have documentation?  It appears someone spoke without thinking, or is
being quoted WAY out of context.

From Robert
The following excerpts are from the article which ran in the Tulsa World
Jan. 3, 93.

    Math's emphasis will change beginning with fifth grade.  Instead
    of computing with pencil and paper, students will spend more time
    learning how to estimate results and use calculators.

    "There is still a need for exact numbers, but those can be
     figured with hand-held calculators"
                  - Gwen Humphrey, curriculum manager, Tulsa Pub Schools

    "...It doesn't matter how many homework assignments are completed
     or how neat the student's work looks."
                  - Jon Sisson, principal
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:19:22 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: re: school daze

On Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:35:33 CDT Robert Moss said:

>From KAT
>                 ........... Either the cash register would
>determine the change or the clerk has to use a calculator.  Under
>no circumstances these days do clerks have to use pen and paper.
>If the clerk is to figure out the change in his head, that is
>actually more of a estimating type than carrying the calculation
>on a piece of paper.
>
>From Robert
>Apparently, you've been much luckier than I when it comes to dealing
>with retail clerks.  Amazing as it seems, there are many establishments
>without smart cash registers.  This places the clerks in the position of
>actually having to make change.  Sometimes, this requires a quick
>mental calculation.
>
>Have you never given a clerk "odd pennies" in order to avoid a pocket
>full of change? For instance, you would hand the clerk $2.02 for a
>purchase of $1.77.  When you do this in some establishments, the entire
>process collapses.  The ire of those behind you in line scorches the
>back of your neck.  You must remember, most of the minimum wage, low
>skill, retail clerk types are products of public education.  Personally,
>I feel much better when it's obvious that they actually *KNOW* the
>answer to such a simple problem.

I should probabely have stopped by now, because enough
explanation has already been given.  But I would say this much:

The type of activity that Robert is talking about is exactly
the one which would be helped by estimating.  The clerk has to
figure out the difference between $2.02 and $1.77, in his
HEAD, right?  I contend that no amount of drills in elementary
school would make this guy significantly more ready to do the
mental calculation.  I agree that those drills would make him
do a better job if he had to do it on paper.  It is exactly
activities like estimating that would enable a clerk to mentally
calculate the difference.

(Thanks for staying on that side.  :-)

>Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:55:36 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions

>From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET

>>Like... murder. To prove someone guilty of murder, you have to prove
>>that he had a certain intent. Next question.
>
>I'm not sure Jamie would let anyone else get away with this, so....
>
>
>1. Without qualification regarding actual charge, your statement is inaccurate.
>   Only certain degrees need proof of intent.

"Murder" is defined statewise. Its definition varies from state
to state.

>2. "He" had a certain intent?  Exclusive language?  ???

You PC police never let up, do you?

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