HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: politics@ucf1vm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ucf1vm"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:55:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Kerry Stephenson and immigrant culture

From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
>
>Toby:
>
>I can tell you exactly what they think of the melting pot concept.  See,
>it used to be that the idea of socialization in America was to help
>people to become *Americans*--people with the same goals, desires,
>and values, despite their ethnic and cultural differences.  (See
>early immigration.)

        To which period of "early immigration" do you refer?  The immigration
during the colonial period?  The surge in the mid-1800s?  The immigration of
the latter 19th and early 20th century?  Is it coincidental that during the
first two periods the culture which the immigrants were leaving (Northern and
Western Europe) and that in the US were relatively similar, with similar legal
customs, language, etc?  All in all, not a radical socialization process.

        The period of immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s was
significantly different from earlier immigrant periods.  It dwarfed all
previous eras of immigration in size and scope, with 25 million arriving
between 1865 and 1915 -- four times the number who had arrived fifty years
before.  The source of this surge was markedly different as well, with many
of these immigrants coming from Asia or Southern and Eastern Europe --
cultures far more removed than the indigenous American society.

        There were those in this latter period who sought to "help people to
become Americans."  The motivation was not altruism, however, but rather
xenophobia.  The Immigration Restriction League, founded in 1894, sought to
screen "undesireable" immigrants out through literacy tests and other means.
The "Americanization" movements of the Progressive Era had similar motivations
at their root.  Thus, fewer people were driven by a desire to "help" these
immigrants than to protect their own status by watering down the culture of the
newcomers.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "It is a principle that shines impartially on
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    the just and on the unjust that once you have
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       a point of view all history will back you up."
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.EDU               -Van Wyck Brooks
YEA003@MARSHALL                          AMERICA'S COMING OF AGE (1915)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:21:56 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      honest question seeks honest answer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> The military brass and several congress critters, including those with
> combat experience, have said that integrating gays into the military
> will not work.
>
   more than "several", but we can let that slide for a bit. supposedly
some folks are gonna try to write the ban on gays into law, as a rider
to the family leave bill or some such. should be interesting . . . :)

> My question is: If the anti-gay bias is so strong in america, why aren't
> non-military types joining the fray and saying "If they're not good
> enough for the military, they're not good enough for the rest of us"?
>
   they are, my friend. there's a lot of anger at gays out there, and
i think it's not directed at the folks who don't flaunt it, it's aimed
at the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" bunch.

   americans are a pretty traditionalist bunch, by and large, and being
as pushy as some gays are does not help matters. if there's obvious in-
justice (i.e. blacks in the south during the 50's and 60's) americans
will usually support a cause, but i don't think america as a whole sees
obvious injustice in the ban on gays in the military.

> When I was of draft age, I knew a number of people who were told "join
> the services or go to jail". Are we still using the military as an
> alternative to prison?
>
   nope. the standards for military service are way higher than those
back in the 60's (i assume that's the era you mean). getting into
trouble with the is, i am told, a quick way to disqualify yourself
from military service.

> fred

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:11:47 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>        Fortunately, that's not true.  As the rate increases people stop
>>selling securities, and move income into tax-free investments.  The rate
>>increase in the early 70s caused a drop in revenues, then a leveling off.  It
>>rebounded with the rate cut in 1978 and every year thereafter until the rate
>>increase in 1986.
>>
>>Brett'
>
>And as people sell securities more than they intended they would
>pay higher capital gains tax and hence revenues will be enhanced.
>
>--KAT

        The selling takes place before the tax rate goes into effect.  Usually,
however, the amount of selling does not significantly change that year's
numbers.  The point is that the next year (and successive years) will see a
decline and/or leveling off of revenues.  This is at the expense of less
capital available to the companies, also.

        Maximizing revenues and maximizing rates usually don't coincide.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:47:45 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

Hi again.
Boy, this is interesting.  So now I'm going to illustrate my ignorance by
asking for clarification :)

Jamie wrote:
>The right of abortion is a right against the government. The government
>may not restrict abortion in certain ways. It is not a right against
>other citizens.
(stuff deleted)
>Scalia says they didn't. He says that the rights which they supposedly
>had the purpose of denying were not, nor could they be, rights which
>the law protects. The rights that the law protects are rights
>against the government, not against organizations like OpRes.

I'm confused.  I understand the idea that rights are "against the
government" and so the government can't restrict them.  But I thought the
whole point of the KK law was to prevent non-government groups from
infringing those rights.  That's how the law read to me, anyway.

Help???
Thanks!
Kerry
From: U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU (rufus t. firefly)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Al Gore
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:45:30 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> After all the talk from GHWB about Al Gore being My Ozone, can we
> expect a more positive approach from the new administration to global
> environmental concerns ?
>
> Dunstan

   depends on what you mean by more positive. if you want hysteria
about things like global warming (wasn't it global cooling a few
years back?), how putting people out of work will protect animals,
hatred of hunting based on the movie "bambi", and general horror
at the way humanity's very existence is destroying the planet;
then al gore is the man for you.

  of course, if you want rationality rather than "the sky is falling"
rhetoric, well, you may want to look elsewhere.

rtf
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:17:22 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: states rights and federal funding

Welcome back, Mistress Kerry, whom Gary recently called
"a glimmer of hope."

>I do not believe that the intention of the Founders was to subjugate
>the states, merely to unite them.  The Bill of Rights applied originally
>to the Federal government alone, and was intended to curb them
>excessive impulse of a centralized government to act *on* the states
>and the people, rather than *for* them.

Agreed--except that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect
individual citizens, not states.

>To enforce the will of the Federal government upon the states implies
>the assumption that control (on that issue) is better exercised by
>a centralized government than a local one.  There are, indeed,
>large and necessary projects that only a larger government is capable
>of undertaking; however, regulation of individual behavior is not
>one of them.

Not so. That is, the incorporation of rights against the fed
to rights against states doesn't imply that at all.

Rights protect individual citizens AGAINST government attempts
to regulate their behavior. The Federal Government often tries
to regulate such behavior, and so do the State governments. The
original Bill of Rights addresses only the first kind of regulation,
but the 14th Amendment addresses the second sort.

The incorporation interpretation of the 14th is a bulwark
AGAINST government control, not one of its mainstays.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:34:14 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Shortest Presidency
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>entire "term".  Atchison's grave states that he was the 12th President of the
>United States.
>
>                                                        Dan, ad nauseum

        The local paper insisted that Clinton is the 41st president, since
Cleveland's two terms should be counted as one "president".
        I guess I should write them and tell them it's 42nd after all :).

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:26:13 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: states rights and federal funding
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

NINAR Kerry writes:

>The application of the Bill of Rights to the states was, IMHO, a judicial
>error, predicated on the percepton that states would not apply some-
>thing akin to the 14th Amendment without being forced.

>Forcing an unwilling populace to accept unwanted law creates
>hostility toward both letter and spirit of said law, and retards
>the natural process toward voluntary acceptance, which would have
>otherwise taken place.

        This is simply astonishing.  Conservatives like to think Liberals
live in some dreamworld, but do you exist in a parallel universe of
some sort!?  An "error" that was based on a perception "that states
would not apply something akin to the 14th Amendment without
being forced"?  Did your education somehow skip the period of
history between 1863 and the Civil Rights Act of '64?  Maybe the
names George Wallace and Orval Faubus strike no dim bells in your
head?
        I'd have to , if only for the memory of a fighter like Thurgood
Marshall, say: Kerry, get a loan and buy a damn clue.

                                Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:20:25 -0500
From:         MCW001@ACAD.DRAKE.EDU
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh & Politics
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

        Come on Stan, isn't this net a hoot and a half?  And, doesn't Mr.
Limbaugh castigate others based on a personal bias against their
viewpoints?  Come on, you can admit it, that's precisely why "Ditto
Heads" listen...  It's FUNNY to hear someone attack and make fun
of those you dislike...
        BTW, if the conservative movement (as spearheaded by Rush's
popular support)  is so very wide-spread, why isn't he in charge of
White House Communications under the Buchanan Administration?
What's that?  Ol' Pat got slaughtered by Poppy Bush in the Primaries?
Wow, with the conservative upswell and everything???

                        Travlr
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:23:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      7-11 guide

Dude !

I'm not sure where you jumped into the dialogue, but the rules which
Jamie demands are fit for people with more time than I have !

Plus, to watch him twist and bend his acrobatic logic case by case
would be more than the list could stand.  No, I will take nothing
less than exactly what I want - reciprocity they call it.

He gets a ton of case names, citations, and page numbers.  Otherwise,
the outcome is predictable "my excerpts do not include the relevant
phrasing" (see reference to his 7-11 guide in post of Jan 13).  Just
make sure you are fair, and jump his case when he doesn't answer my
list in a single day.

Hell, it took him an entire week to get CASEY !!!  A major decision
in a recent term ! What will an established doctrine do to him ???

I'm in no rush ... he won't be ... sorry to disappoint.

P.S.Ruckman,Jr.
  "Happiness is being underestimated"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.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:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:07:39 -0500
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [abortion case]

Hi again :)
Joe wrote (in part):

>   Justice Scalia argued that abortion protestors don't do so just to
>infringe on the rights of a class (women), but for many reasons (ex.
>right to life of fetuses mean even in test tube, they can't be
>aborted).  The dissents argue that the _effect_ is only on the class
>of women, and this should be the standard.  They probably noted case
>law that would support this argument, and reality would show that
>women as class are victims to the demonstrations at issue.

Now, I'm way out of my depth here, but this line of reasoning looks a lot
like what I read about a recent freedom-of-religion decision.  I posted a
summary to the list, and naturally forgot all the details.  The idea,
though, was like this:  formerly, a law could be held to violate freedom of
religion if it had as an *effect* a restriction on that freedom -- even if
that wasn't the intent.  But that precedent was changed so that a law must
have as its *intent* the restriction of religious freedom.  It doesn't
matter if the *effect* is there -- intent is all that matters.

I don't remember who wrote the decision, but I find the parallel
interesting.  Especially in light of all our recent verbiage on the nature
of "intent" :)

Anyone know more about this?

Thanks!
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:27:32 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Chill

On Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:45:40 EST Kerry Stephenson said:

>I ain't been back long, but I've noticed a disturbing change in the
>list since my mysterious departure.

It was "mysterious" to us.  But I didn't know it was mysterious
to you too?  :-)

>--NINAR Kerry

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Priority: normal
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:43:54 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Homosexuals in the Military
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> 1)  I realize that this is probably impractical or something,
>     but why couldn't people wishing to not serve in a unit
>     with a known homosexual be allowed to transfer?

Because then you'd end up with Gay-Only Units.  If that's the case,
why don't we just put everyone together.  (I'm sure some of the guys
would rather be in mixed units with women anyway.)


> 2)  Why couldn't a person not wishing to serve at all in a
>     military which allowed homosexuals to serve, be allowed
>     early discharge(honorable)?  One thing that this would do
>     is reduce the size of the military(at least a little) and
>     would allow for some budgetary saving.
>
This might be a great short-term outlook, considering we might not
need a military right now.  But if everyone who wanted an honorable
discharge could just get one, we'd end up with a "skeleton crew"...
The first time a crisis came up, we'd have to draft.

In that event, there is a crisis.  Do you kick gays out again?  Or do
you let those with religious objections stay home?  In that case,
what's the purpose of the draft?

--Stan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Encoding: 35 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:50:00 EST
From:         AYC3@NCH08A.EM.CDC.GOV
Subject:      Re: Reunion on the Mall
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Nick,

You brought everyone back to my actual question (which I admit was not very
clearly put). Thank you!

>>I believe that everyone is arguing over the incorrect issue about the cost
>>of the inaugural.  From what I here on CNN the cost that should be of
>>intrest is the amount that the Federal Government has to pay for the
>>inauguration.  CNN says that this will be the cheapest for the federal
>>government because corperate America is picking up most of the tab.  Lets
>>agree what we are arguing on before we start throwing accusations.

BTW, as unobjective as I was in my statement about how "we the people" were
not invited to Reagan's & Bush's inaugurals, I really did not have any
preconceived notions about how expensive Clinton's was, relative to R's &
B's.  I am still curious to know the reported costs (both to fed govt and to
corporate/private sponsors) of the 1977-93 inaugurals.  Am I correct in
thinking that the fed govt pays nil for those balls?

--Anjani

p.s. I fully admit that I'm partial to Bill & Hillary, so I guess I cut them
both a lot of slack, but regardless of this partiality, I thought the
shindig on the Mall was extremely well organized and well-intentioned.  I did
notice that the racial/ethnic makeup of the crowd bore little resemblance to
that of DC, but I'm not sure why that was.  Part of it may be the
predominance of southern rock, cajun, and tex-mex music, but I don't think
that's sufficient explanation.  Apparently they "stuck" some of the musicians
expected to draw black audiences over in Anacostia (a poorer region of town)
and had a free shuttle to take people over there.  I read in the Baltimore
paper that the Lincoln Memorial Concert audience had a much larger (and more
representative) proportion of blacks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:12:06 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Nanny and Zoe

Okay, here's a standard:

If a nominee (candidate, etc.) is found to have engaged in activities
that *average people* would have been fined or jailed for without
clout or money to get them out of it, that nominee not only should
not be confirmed, he/she should be prosecuted.

After all, if the state discovers that you have broken the law, the
state has a duty to punish you for it; even if you are applying for
a job with that state.  ("state" is used here in the generic sense.)

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:MEC038@ukcc.uky.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:52:57 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
              27 Jan 1993 13:26:02 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:26:02 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>I saw the show.  Bill admitted to no specific sin and
>>Hillary did forgive him but for an unspecified
>>behavior.
>>
>>Let's offer some substantive facts or drop this.
>>
>>--KAT
>
>        Look this is all standard political nonsense:
>
>   When caught, "apologize" but don't mention the crime.  Get support from
>those supposedly affected, again not mentioning the crime.
>
>   Thus the opposition can not point to an admission of guilt, and you get
>credit for "apologizing".

He did not apologize to the opposition.  If any -- and
I doubt if he did -- he did apologize to Hillary.

So you see he is guilty, I say prove, you say he
apologized, I say but he did not apologize for that
specific crime, and you say this.

I think that is a political version of "begging the
question."

>        So let's drop the "he didn't do it because he never admitted it", ok?

So why don't you finish the sentence, "He did it
because _______"?

--KAT

>Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.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, 28 Jan 1993 09:50:56 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gennifer says: [who cares]!
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

        Bill & Hillary appear on a news show.  Hillary claims to have forgiven
Bill for alleged actions to  which Bill has never admitte, but has apologized
for.

        Clearly, nothing happened and Bill & Hillary were just doing a lawyer
joke.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU