HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: It was criminal, just like we said
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:32 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GSFD0DIQ7600E5H6@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>,        
 The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU> writes...
>>>  Oh, and why hasn't the press attacked Inouye like they have Packwood?
>>
>>I don't know. Does Brett have a hypothesis?
>>Jamie
>. . . 
>I'd say it was because Inouye is a Dem while Packwood is a Rep.  Just like it
>was only the Rep Senators that caught heat over the Clarence Thomas hearings
>while people like Ted and Howard were left alone.                

Not quite.  More likely it's because Inouye is a Democrat from (one-party) 
Hawaii, and the most powerful man in the state.  Quite simply, you don't cross 
him.  Also, everyone in Hawaii agrees that the way it came out was extreme
dirty tricks.  His opponent in the last election sent someone with a hidden
mike to interview the (then) suspected complaintant, and gave a particularly
hard interview.

Not that this means I don't think he should be punished also.

						Dan, ad nauseum
						Registered and voting Democrat
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:37:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homos having kids

>Is anyone else thinking what I am now? That it's getting to be time
>to report the deranged Caius to his listowner?
>MWM

actually m, i don't think that caius has typed anything threatening or
insulting enough for such a move. the poor guy is having problems engaging
the brain, that's all. maybe we can bring him 'round? expand his base
of knowledge or something equally noble? maybe we could get him drunk and
take pictures? but i don't think we have to tattletale just yet.

:)

-linda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:50:46 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      RE: Diversity of Views at Clinton's Summit?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

What did the economic summit achieve?  I thought Clinton said he already an
 economic plan.  Apparently he didn't.  The summit was just an opportunity for
 Clinton to keep campaigning.  -Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:19:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: NORNAL

Dr Pizz:

        The people in society to whom we look for our understanding of
what are "disorders" wholeheartedly disagree with you.  Homosexuality is
not considered a disorder, neither physically nor mentally.  That may not
be the last word, for I have always said (and been misunderstood by lessers
on this) that a statement by an expert does not PROVE someone's argument; it
may enhance it but is not the last word.

        However, virologists tell us what organisms are viri; physicians abd
(oops) and psychiatrists and psychologists tell us what are human medical and
mental "disorders".  Homosexuality, as described by these professionals as a
body, is NOT a disorder.

        So if we look at your example, we see: 1. - homosexuality is not
"typical"; 2 - irrelevant to you; 3 - not a disorder.

        Now, where did that argument go?  Down that hole in the sink....what's
it called?  The drain?


-T.
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:02:24 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: Marrou
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Differential" at Dec 17, 92 12:17 pm

The Integral Differential pisze:
>> >Who did you vote for?
>> >Caius
>>
>>         I voted for Marrou, despite the reservations I had about his conduct
>> and handling of his personal affairs.  Mainly because


What is the political and economical program of Marrou? I've heard he had taken
part in all 50 states elections and had been ignored by the media.

Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: UVa PCMail 1.7.1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:27:51 EST
From:         "Scott W. Fischer" <swf7q@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      help
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics
          <POLITICS%ohstvma.BITNET@Virginia.EDU>

Can anyone tell me how to tell the system not to send me any messages while
I'm away on break?

Thanks in advance,


  Scott W. Fischer
Mr. Jefferson's Resort                  Mary Washington College
University of Virginia                  Fredericksburg, Virginia

                             Home address:
                         717E Mountainwood Road
                    Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
              (804) 296-4752
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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:31:44 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

>>The idea is that by linking monetary growth to something that does
>>not increase quickly, it will curb inflation. The prevention of
>>inflation is like a religion to some, inflation is considered
>>the greatest possible evil, deflation as the greatest good.

>I still don't fully understand this.
>The total mass of gold in the world, or in Fort Knox, does not
>increase quickly. But its monetary value could increase quickly.
>Wouldn't a growing economy lead to a rise in the price of gold?

No, the value of gold would be held constant, at for example $35.00
per ounce.

>>(Why is deflation a bad thing?)

>>Depends upon where your income is from, if you are cast out of work
>>by deflationary pressures in the marketplace then you may not like
>>it much. On the other hand if you are wealthy and own bonds or have
>>money loaned out then you will likely enjoy a deflation as the money
>>that you receive in repayment buys more.

>Well, I believe these effects actually occur only when the deflation
>(or inflation) is not expected. But if the country knew that it was
>on the gold standard, it would obviously expect deflation.
>Anticipated deflation cannot possibly have the effects you've mentioned.

Depends upon who is doing the planning; will interest rates on credit
taken out prior to planned deflation be adjusted, will the amount of
principal outstanding be adjusted to reflect the larger value of the
dollar after deflation? If not the pressure of high payments on credit
could cause serious ill-effects for both business and consumers, if the
deflation were profound enough.

>But my question was different.
>Suppose all the currency is backed by gold.
>Do we measure M1 by the dollar value of the currency? Or by the weight
>of the gold? Or by the total price of the gold?

In that case M1 would still be the number of dollars, which would also
be related to the amount of gold that backs it. (As you suspect later
on in the post it would not be as uncomplicated a relationship as the
goldbugs imply however.)


>>>I don't get it.
>>>First, I don't understand how a gold standard is related to the
>>>manipulation of the money supply.

>>It limits the growth of the money supply to the growth of discovery
>>of gold.

>I still don't see how!
>As I speculated, and as O'Andy has confirmed, the basic way the
>fed works on the money supply is by buying and selling its outstanding
>bonds. Why would a gold standard change that practice?
>(Would it change the way the fed can affect the reserve rate?)

You are correct, the Fed could still manipulate the money supply
by altering reserve requirements.

>Whew.

Indeed.

>Jamie

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:47:44 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: the way dull tv ought to be

>However, the >problem< of racism is >oppression<, not >bigotry<.  And
>it is a sad fact, and painful for most whites like myself to admit,
>that whites >still< hold the overwhelming amount of power in this
>country over people of other races, and blacks particularly.  Racism
>is about a mixture of power and bigotry.   It's about oppression.

This definition seems far too simplistic.  My family was the only
"white" family in our Oakland, CA neighborhood in the 60s.  While
whites outside that neighborhood may have had a lot of power, the
African-Americans in that neighborhood had a lot of power over us.
Did their racism capability really depend on some lines on a map?

While it is true that SOME whites hold the overwhelming amount of
power, it doesn't imply that ALL whites share in this, let alone that
all blacks are oppressed.  After all, Cosby has far more power than I
do.

Let me suggest that racism is a TYPE of bigotry.  Other people use
"bigotry" on POLITICS-L and they don't always have racism in mind.

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:06:05 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> jimmy donal wales pisze:
>
> >> The other side of this discussion is apparently confused about the
> >> effect that a gold standard would ahve on this process.  I think that
> >> what he means to advocate is  FREE BANKING, rather than a GOLD
> >> STANDARD.
>
> FREE BANKING (which is another matter) is not possible without SOLID
> CURRENCY.
> In the Fractional Reserve System we now have, the Fed has many arguments
> against Free Banking. They are artificial problems, and does not exist
> under gold srtandard monetary system
>
>
> >>
> >> --Jimbo
> >>
>
> Caius.

 fine. so we use other things as "solid currency". how about silver?
rare metals of all kinds? computer chips? bluejeans? why so hung
up on gold?

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:29:02 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Definition

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>In one of my firsts posting I have defined the rightist:
>
>1) supporter of free market economy ( free = no government intervention)
>
>2) supporter of superiority of national interest over "international peace"
>  "disarmament movements" etc.
>
>Nobody has questioned this definition, so I assume everybody accepts this.

You are mistaken. Several people have questioned it. I am one of
them. I actually posted, largely for your benefit, a brief, and
oversimplified, history of the concepts of conservatism and
liberalism, and associated them with Right and Left.

You can use the Humpty Dumpty theory of meaning if you like, but
don't expect others to understand you.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:03:57 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Sorry, David, the place where money is from is the Fed, not the
Treasury dept.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:57:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      the dull tv thing

Rush ... "arrogant?"

    Sure, if you are humor-impaired !

            Relax, WWF wrestling isn't real either !
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:00:00 EST
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: auto deaths, drunk driving, guns....

On Tue, 8 Dec 1992 11:39:17 EST Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
>
>   So, then, if I am a californian having a glass of california wine
> at a local california restaurant which employs only california
> residents, in what ways are the feds involved?
If you violate California alcohol laws, you are committing a federal
offense.  21st Amendment.

>   Does that change if I am from out of state, or some of the workers
> are from out of state, but the restaurant and the wine is still from
> california?
No--if you are from out-of-state but in California, you enjoy all the
rights and priviliges of Californians.  Constitution Art. ? Sec. ?
(Not an amendment.)  Perhaps Congress could pass a constitutional but
obnoxious law forbidding out-of-state workers at places that serve
alcohol.

>   Suppose that wine gets transported to minnesota, and sold to a
> restaurant there.  After the restaurant has purchased the wine, in
> what way can congress regulate their sale of it on premises, or
> within minnesota?
Once the wine has legally passed into Minnesota under federal law,
the Feds have no more jurisdiction.

>   How does one *rationalize* federal regulation of those intrastate
> aspects of alcohol distribution or consumption?
With the fact that one is on the Supreme Court for life and can with
the help of others like one make one's own laws.

>   How much interstate commerce is involved in my purchase of a
> six-pack of bud from the local convenience store?  Well, presumably
> there is some interstate commerce going from the nearest bud
> brewery to the convenience store - but can the feds *regulate* my
> purchase and consumption of alcohol within a state?
No.  But they can enforce state law.

>                            -Tim
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:07:54 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: NORMAL

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

> You are wrong! I am not a Catholic, althouth it is true what you have said
> about Catholicism in Poland.

> I cannot understand why you put everybody, who has different views that you,
> into on big bag: Catholic, Conservative, Rightist, Rascist, Nazi.

> I think you should know the diferences.

This from the same guy who puts all those who are not normal
into one bag and calls them "UNNORMAL".

> Caius.

--KAT :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:14:01 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      What constitutes "proof" for you, telepathy? ...

Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:09:37 +0100 (MET)
From: Grzegorz Albinowski <caius%II.UJ.EDU.PL@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: RE: Last comments on "rightism"

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
>>
>> Caius' claim that Hitler and Mussolini were "LEFTIST" is totally without
>> substantiation, nor does he offer a shred of evidence to buttress his
>> alleged "case."

>1) Government intervention in economy (look at the economic law
>Hitler and Mussolini have offered to the businesses) is enough to
>consider them LEFTIST;

By your definition, ALL government is "leftist," which is hogwash!
Government intereferes in ALL economies, but that does not make them
all "leftist."

>> I cannot discuss an issue where an irrational position is
>> taken, and only rhetoric is offered to defend it.

>You cannot discuss an issue, bacause you have nothing to say. You
>have no proofs.

I have offered "proofs" acceptable in ANY academic setting, just
because you find them distasteful doesn't negate them, and as for
"nothing to say," I suspect that only to you have I nothing to say.

>And you still support slogans like "nazi=rightist". And *YOU* offer
>nothing but volume of trash.

Well, my "volume of trash" included citing a member of the British
Academy, a member of the Academia Europeax, amd a Founding Master of
St.Catherine's College at Oxford, and a thirty-five year veteran of
Universal News Service and CBS, author of four books on European
history. I stand by "Nazi=rightist," you have offered no credible
refutation of my FACTS, save rhetoric.

>> There is not enough time to debate with a person who refuses to
>>accept terms that most of the scholarly world agrees upon. VMS

>Give us proofs, not words!

My boy, words ARE proofs unless you need pictures or something. Most
of the scholarly world, which apparently you are not part of, given
your inability to accept reasonable scholarly citation, accepts
"words" from reputable sources. So, my "proof" about Nazis being
rightists is at this point more reasonable than yours in that I
offered proofs, not mumbo-jimbo, not rhetoric. Unless you want us to
all embrace telepathy, I turn your chjallenge back on you, offer me
citation that Nazis AREN"T rightists beyond assertions about
economies that are NOT accompanied by citations.

>Caius

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:18:16 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: your mail

From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>


First Caius says:
> Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
>       what people think, do, choose etc.

Then , when a flaw is pointed to him, he says:

> Green skin - normal on Mars, abnormal on Earth;

I thought you said "you cannot judge the skin," what happened?

> Caius.

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: York University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 09:13:02 EST
From:         MMORSE@YORKVM1.BITNET
Subject:      Re:

Dear Caius,
  I think you should know that while rightists have the same rights
and freedoms as the rest of us, they are definitely NOT normal.
(Care to define your terms, chum?)
Provisionally Cordially,
Michael
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:22:47 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      On "libertarianism" ...

Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:46:05 +0100 (MET)
From: Grzegorz Albinowski <caius%II.UJ.EDU.PL@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: RE: Some replies...

Doctor Pizz pisze:
>>  The less government is involved in my life, the happier I'll be!

>ME TOO! A couple of my friends too!

>Caius.

Actually, (and this will probably stun both of you) I agree
whole-heartedly with this philosophy - but where you WON'T agree is
that I believe that needs application across the board - about sexual
preference, drug use, gambling, abortion, prostitution, pornography
purchase and/or use, religious practices (like snake handling or
peyote ingestion) and so on. I do not believe government has any
right to govern ANY of these behaviors. I DO believe government has
the right to enact minimum standards of behavior for society as a
whole - thou shalt not murder, rob, discriminate, attack, arsonize,
run stop lights, drive recklessly or any other activity that
endangers or degrades one group for the benefit of one or more other
groups. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:09:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

Just one correction for Jamie:

        it's "Anti-Papism".

        And no, you do not stand accused of such.


-T.
Who IS anti-papist, and welcomes all such accusations....
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:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:51:28 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among the poor es

>>So, Brett', are you saying that Social Security, Federal Employee and
>>Railroad retirements, Unemployment Insurance and Worker's Compensation
>>are bad things because they "distort" the poverty statistics? Are
>>you saying that they're bad because the wealthy don't benefit from
>>them? (a false assumption)

>        Nice try, but the original statement was that not counting non-income
>of the poor distorts the poverty rate, which it does.
>        When you count entitlements, those that can be classified as "below"
>the poverty level goes down.

Brett', I think that you are looking at the wrong numbers then; I think
if I am understanding what you are saying correctly that you should be
looking at the "non-means-tested non-cash government transfers."

>>What's your real beef?

>        That we don't count all sources of money that people receive when
>determining the number of people below the poverty line.

I agree with you that the poverty stats are not accurate (though for
different reasons) but suppose that we were significantly overfunding
anti-poverty programs that provide income support for those below the
poverty line; wouldn't there be a significant *surplus* in the budget
object that goes to income maintenance since it is means-tested?

>Brett'

-other Andy
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:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:10:10 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: laffer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              16, 92 4:18 pm

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>>
>> > Your curve suggests that people are so lazy (or so honest) that they pay
>> > all taxes unless they reach 80-90%.
>>
>> I (so did my curve) assumed no such thing.  The reason my curve started
>> falling off when reaching 100% was your fact #2 with which I agreed.
>> (That revenues drops to zero at 100% rate.)
>>
>> I also agree that when the top marginal rate is increased beyond
>> some level, some people start working not as hard as before and
>> therefore the revenues will start to drop.
>>

But your peak was drawn at 99% which is not true. I think the peak is
somewhere between 40 an 60%.

And remember that maximizing state budget incomes is not the only goal of
the economy.

If taxes are lower (on the left side of the peak) :

1) people have more money, what makes them happy,

2) economy grows faster, what makes both people AND budget eaters happy.


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