HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Hate Speech is back
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:36 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92121715040420@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,        
 Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> writes...
>The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on a Wisconsin case in
>which a man convicted of aggravated battery had his sentence increased
>(doubled, actually) because he yelled racist remarks during the attack.
>Wisconsin has statutory increases in penalties for hate-motivated
>crimes.
> 
>The Court seemed extremely disinclined to allow this sort of law
>in its opinions in a recent Minnesota case. My prediction is that
>the members will show at least a moderate change of heart.

It is very unusual for the Supremes to take two similar cases so rapidly. 
Probably what they want to do is scale back the previous decision in response
to the common perception in the legal community that they pretty much knocked
out hate crime laws, and possibly affirmative action in any sense of the word
at all.

>. . . And I am also quite interested to see what O'Connor will say, since
>my guess is that she will be Chief Justice after Rehnquist.

NOT!  Clinton will appoint someone from off the Court to be Chief Justice if
(and probably when) he gets the chance.  (My prediction:  Too early to tell.)

						Dan, ad nauseum
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (RICK GEORGE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Re: Uncl: Re: Uncl: the operation rainbow thing; or,
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:09:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>The Colorado initiative was a state question.  That obviously makes it a
>state matter.  Now if the local communities can pass local ordinances that
>avoid conflict with the state constitution, that is their choice.
>
>---Robert

Should District 24's rules, then, have to avoid conflict with the New
York City Board of Education's rules?

...Rick
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: On Rightism,
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:49 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9212181532.AA11121@infoserv.ii.uj.edu.pl>,       
  Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL> writes...
>If I had to choose:
> 
>1) PERFECT political freedom (right to vote, speak etc) and
>   NO economic freedom ( all money is grabed and distributed by the govt)
> 
>2) NO political freedom
>   PERFECT economic freedom (low poll-tax spent on army and police)
> 
>I would prefer to earn and spend my money myself. It would give me more
>freedom.

And why can't we have both?  As a cooperativist, I think it's worth a try.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Discrimination of various kinds
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:39:43 GMT

>One (admittedly only tangentially related) question for Doctor Pizz:
>WHAT exactly do you think is wrong with homosexuality?
>
>I am delighted that you do not subscribe to Magic Book theory of
>moral judgments. But I wonder what your alternative basis is.

I'm rather interested, myself.

>Still, I'm wondering about the rules of Jimbo's game. I thought the
>rules were these: KAT challenged Jimbo to name a number, and then
>KAT would name a larger one. I'm not sure whether Jimbo thinks he's
>named a number. If he did, I am confident that KAT can name a larger one.

I've described my number, even though I haven't actually written it
down.  This is much like considering the sentence that comes first
in an alphabetized list of sentences written in English which have
100 words.  I don't think that anyone has ever written that sentence
down, but for some purposes, it will suffice to give a description.

My number is 2^b, where b is largest number ever thought of by any
member of this list.  Of course, this leaves me in some peril, depending
upon how loosely we interpret 'thought of'.  For example, just for fun,
I'll happily concede that I've probably never thought of the number
that I've described, just as I've never thought of that 100 word
sentence.  I've thought about the rule for generating it, though.

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:17:06 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: vote
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>>      I AM a Conservative
>>>
>>>       I voted against Bush.    (PAT BUCHANAN RULES!)
>>>
>>> --Pizz--
>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

1) I didn't like Bush
2) Didn't trust Clinton
3) Thought Perot had a 50/50 chance of being an American Hitler.  (Well okay,
not THAT bad, but definately totalitarian in nature.)

        My wife voted for Perot (actually, tried to vote.  The system "lost"
her registration even though she got confirmation in the mail...)
        Yet when I pointed out the kind of things Perot wanted to do (in the
RICO/govt. seizure tradition) she didn't like it, but still wanted to vote for
him.  I guess the "it wouldn't happen to people like me" won out :).

        There were a lot of people who split their ticket and voted Libertarian
below the Pres. line and for Perot, which still amazes me.  Perot is anti-free
trade, protectionist, gov. interventionist, and has little regard for the
sanctity of the Constitution.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:20:49 GMT
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Employment Law (inter alia)
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

Dr. Pizz
>Tim
>
>I have always been consistent.  I think that businesses should be free
>from any discrimination laws, as long as they get no federal money.  In
>other words, I am against regulation of their practices, including the
>racial and sexual discrimination laws.  My logic is sound because I
>have consistently stated that
>
[stuff deleted]

This all boils down to one's view of society. If you believe that
government has a role in forming social policy, then it is perfectly
legitimate and indeed necessary that government enact legislation
restricting the freedoms of employers.

Participation in any society results in a loss of personal liberty (and
in most cases welath via the taxation system). If you confer
legitimacy on a government to take away my money through taxation,
then you should also confer legitimacy on them to influence my
behaviour as an employer.

What's the problem ?

Dunstan
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 13:28:36 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some replies...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Tim

I have always been consistent.  I think that businesses should be free
from any discrimination laws, as long as they get no federal money.  In
other words, I am against regulation of their practices, including the
racial and sexual discrimination laws.  My logic is sound because I
have consistently stated that

1) It is not the business of the gov't to interfere with private
people's lives

2) It is not the business of the gov't to interfere with private
business's lives

3) As long as a person or business is working with its own funds, and
receiving money from the gov't, it should be free from their control.

4) Certain laws prevent prostitution, fraud, false advertising, etc.
These are important, as they force business to follow the same laws as
private citizens, against the equivalents of prostitution, theft,
slander/libel.

5) Private individuals have the right to discriminate against people in
their choice of sexual partners, friends, associates, clubs, etc.  Why
should Private business be held to a higher standard just because they
are a money making group as opposed to a social group?

6) Governmental organizations are representative of the people, who are
all "stockholders" in the "company" that is the gov't.  Hence the
policies of the gov't must represent fairness to all of its
stockholders.  Therefore, government must be held to a higher standard
in its business transactions, since it is a public company, and not a
private one.

7) Since the stockholders in gov't are the peopl, its policies must be
fair to the people, just as a private company has to answer to tis
stockholders.

Any questions?  What is irrational about this?  If you disagree with my
assumptions, we can discuss the basis for those, and maybe come up with
some constructive debate, but clearly everything follows from them.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:24:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: An Historian

In response to Tim's cute request about AN HISTORIAN, I'll refer him to
Jimbo's post of a while back...I like his dictionary a lot...

I direct Tim's special attention to Number Three:

>From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
>
>
>AN: (etymology efficiently elided) (other obtuseness omitted) A - in
>standard speech and writing used:
>
>       (1) invariably before words beginning with a vowel letter and sound
>       {an oak}
>
>       (2) invariably before h-initial words in which the h is silent {an
>       honor}
>
>       (3) frequently before h-initial words which have in an initial
>       unstressed syllable an /h/ sound often lost after the [an]
>
>       (4) sometimes esp. in England before words like union and European
>       whose initial letter is a vowel and whose initial sounds are /yu:/ or
>       /yu./
>
>Does that settle it?
>
>--Jimbo


Hmm..."h-initial words which have in an initial unstressed syllable an /h/
sound often lost after the [an]"....hmmmmm.....*what* word does that make me
think of?  Couldn't be HISTORIAN, could it?  Let's take a look:

HISTORIAN
H-initial word:                         CHECK
Initial unstressed syllable:            CHECK
/h/ sound lost after the [an]:          CHECK

Yeah, I guess that WAS the word that the dictionary definition made me think
of....HISTORIAN....as in AN HISTORIAN....as in THIS IS AN HISTORIAN'S LAST
POST ON THIS ISSUE....

-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:34:49 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Fetal Logic

>From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

>|>Whether the fetus and the child are one and the same in any
>|>relevant sense is exactly the question at issue. Perhaps you
>|>can prove that they are one and the same. But unless it can
>|>be proved, it is not inconsistent to hold that the child is
>|>entitled to protections to which the fetus is not entitled.
>|>Jamie
>
>No problem.  Let's perform a partial abortion.  In other words, let's just
>rip off the arms and legs but stop short of crushing the head.  Now when
>the baby is born and it just happens to be missing arms and legs, there
>must be a connection.

I don't know what the point is supposed to be here.

A "partial abortion" like that would result in a person who does
have claims against whomever it was that performed it.

Jamie
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 16:13:15 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: your mail
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              16, 92 4:42 pm

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> > Blacks -  you cannot judge the nationality or skin, you can judge
>> >       what people think, do, choose etc.
>>
>> Really?  I would call a person with green skin abnormal.  Wouldn't
>> you?

Green skin - normal on Mars, abnormal on Earth;

If there is a place in the Universe where homosexuals are considered normal
let's send them there!

Caius.
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:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:22:01 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      laffer
Comments: To: Politics Disc List <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

                        Laffer curve
budget
income
 ^
 |                         _______
 |                  ___---         ---___
 |                -                       -
 |              /                           \
 |            / ----------------------------- \
 |          /  |                             |  \
 |         /   |                             |   \
 |       /     |                             |     \
 |      /      |                             |      \
 |     /       |                             |       \
 |   /         |                             |         \
 |  /          |                             |          \
 | /           |                             |           \
 |/            |                             |            \
 --------------------------------------------------------------->
 0%          suggested                     today         100%  tax rate
                                  taxes                        taxes


Explanation:

Let's imagine there is one tax : a percentage of something (incomes or
spending, that's doesn't matter)

At the 0% rate the budget receives nothing. (obviuos maths fact)
At the 100% rate the budget receives nothng - people close or hide their
businesses. (obvious economic fact)

1st Fact: The govt budget tends to request all money possible.

2nd Fact: Increasing taxes can result in lower budget incomes.

3rd Fact: Todays budget income can be achieved at a lower rate.

Conclusion:

  ----  LOWER TAXES!  ----


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:22:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      70% Human

Just heard on ABC World News Now that women make $.70 for every $1.00
men make in the US; that's _down_ from last year (I think they said it had
been $.72).

I thought it was the man who was less...you know, the missing rib and all...

Speaking of that, another report spoke of the Vista, CA School Board.  Seems
the Christian Right won a majority there last month, and were sworn in
yesterday.  One of the new members is on staff at the "Institute for Creation
Studies".  First item on next month's agenda: teaching creationism in the
schools.

Those ivory towers are looking mighty inviting...if only as a way to get out
of the gunsights of these folks.

"I pray allegiance, to the God of the United States of America.  And to the
Resurrection, by which we're Saved.  One religion, ordered by God, with
(oops) homogeneous, with fanaticism and racism for all."

I know I'M sleeping tight tonight.....


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:46:00 AST
From:         Ramon <R_ALEMAN@UPR1.UPR.CLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Recent List History for Ramon
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Recently jimmy donal wales (Is that your REAL name? Ha,ha!) said :

>Recently, Ramon, the list held an election for President.  I was the
>winner, so now I'm list president.  However, there do appear to be
>some anti-democratic forces around, a false-pretender to the Presidency,
>and other such rot.
>But probably not so much anti-democratic sentiment as to allow you to
>regain control.

      Elections? Yeeeech, what an awful concept! That goes to prove
how people's minds deteriorate when they are not guided by the supreme
intellects that God gave the human race, (Namely, people like me!).

      I guess I will have to turn into a democratic socialist and start all
over again.

                                            Ramon

P.S. This is all a joke! Do not believe any of it, (or should you?).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:40:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Discrimination of various kinds

>"Popish" means that someone or something is rather like the Pope, i.e. "that
>statement is pretty popish" or "your wardrobe is rather popish" :).

i though "popish" had to do with art in the style of andy warhol :)


>BTW - to be further nitpicky, catholics are not papists.  _Roman Catholics_
>are papists.  I'm sure an Episcopalian or Eastern Orthodox Catholic would
>take offense at being thought of as a Papist.

aren't Episcopalians considered
protestant???

-linda (our library xmas party is today....cocktails at noon, so i'll be
half-looped for friday beer countdown. nyah nyah, i'm gonna be drunk before
you guys)
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 16:38:48 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: On Rightism,
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              SMITH" at Dec 16, 92 7:29 pm

VALENTINE M. SMITH pisze:
>>
>> I went back to the original post of "Caius" denying that Nazis were
>> right-wing, and added two that have been written in the past two days
>> on this theme, and will cite several passages within this post from
>> two "centrist" (as I've heard them labelled) historians - Alan

[280 lines deleted]

Are you going to convince me by VOLUME? Do you think that a lie repeated
more than, say, 1000 times becomes true.

Please tell me a single fact, other that quotation from "scientifical
sources", that can show us that the Nazis where right-wing.

And plase do not tell us about concensus. There is NO concensus.


Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:38:09 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Home ownership among poor
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>         When you count entitlements, those that can be classified as "below"
>> the poverty level goes down.
>>
>
>Brett, I still don't understand what you mean, especially not by that
>statement.  Even though I have been keeping up with all the appended
>conversation threads in the posts <grin>, I don't understand what you're
>trying to say by that statement, other than the fact that entitlement
>programs raise the amount of people that can be considered above the
>poverty line.

        In general, some people will point to the poverty rate as evidence that
we need more entitlement-style programs.  However, entitlement programs are not
included in determining who is "needy" with regards to the poverty line.
        So it's a bit like asking who needs swimming lessons and not asking
"who has already had lessons" but "who wants to swim better".
        Fine if your program is out to help everyone, but the entitlement
programs are supposed to be helping those at the bottom.  One program that has
failed dismally in that respect is the earned income tax credit, which
apparently goes not to the poorest quintile, but the second poorest.  Which is
only natural, if you think about it.  Everyone in the poorest quintile is
either exempt from filing (no income above the minimum), already getting 100%
back, or avoiding taxes (no reported income).  (Please note that the last
alternative in no way implies how many are doing that :).  A better
implementation of EIC would be a negative income tax for those below N dolalrs
in income.
        The figures I posted earlier show that about 4% of the current
recipients* are not "needy" wrt the poverty line.  Not that they are
fantastically wealthy, either.  The idea is that we need:

        a) a better yardstick to determine need
        b) a better way to get aid to the needy

(* what I mean is that when eliminating nonmeans-tested cash transfers from the
government, the number of people "below the poverty line" decreases by 4%)

>This is not a rich vs. poor thing, as O'Andy I think was trying to say,
>but if we took away the entitlement programs, would you say that the
>amount of people classifiable as "below" the poverty level would then
>>increase<?

        There is a difference between taking away entitlements and using the to
determine need.
        If we are going to use the poverty level to determine need, we should
count all entitlements as income for that purpose.

>This is not a challenge to your statement; I just am a little fuzzy
>on the significance of your point.
>Ellen

        That's ok, I blur as the calander year ends :).

Brett'
(The problem is not in your set)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU