HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:34:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov16.170925.16802@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.173354.20182@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>>
>>	Is this a reported fact of just something to stir up
>>debate on the net...
>>
>>
>It's total bullshit.  I doubt Clinton has devoted even one second of
>thought to the EEOC since the election, much less who is going to run
>it.  In any event, No one in the Clinton camp has said anything about
>who is going to be in the new administration (except that Clinton will
>be President and Gore will be Vice President).
>
>Paul.

Sorry, this is neither bullshit nor something to stir up debate on the net.  
November 8 on Meet The Press, one of the two leaders of Clinton's transition
committee said that Anita Hill was indeed at the top of the list for Head 
of EEOC.

It is a sad day in america.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Strategy ( for the 90s )
Date: 24 Nov 1992 00:06:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sl1yn@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) says:

>In article <9211222154.AA02016@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu 
>|>               Avoiding the Federal Lawnmower
>|>      Mr. Lawnmower comes calling, he will happily pluck everyone around
>|>      me and go on his way.
> 
>  I am afraid the mower blades are set so low, they will take all the grass
>down and a lot of dirt, too.  Like a disk sander chewing through your flesh
>until it hits bone.


       Hey, the Lawnmower is my primary strategy.
       I'm checking out Uruguay too, you know.
       I don't expect the boat to stay afloat, but hey


           " Give Peace a Chance "


HAHAHAHA!

>  We are headed for the land of anarchy on this ship of fools.
>  As Robert A. Heinlein would have said, "Keep your powder dry."  And,  "Always
>carry weapons."  
>  All intelligent rats prepare to abandon ship.
>  CRASH  BIFF  KAPOW KARUMBA RIP  POUND  KRIICK  GROING  SHRED  AURGH
>  SOS
>  We're going down...
>  help...anybody...
> 
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Clinton Nominees for the Supreme Court
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:22:05 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Nov18.164757.24804@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.003048.1113@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <87312@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>>>In 18392@oracle.us.oracle.com, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov13.080701.15087@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>>>>>Uh, excuse me, but isn't Anita Hill a right-wing Republican?  Why on
>>>>>earth would Bill Clinton appoint her to anything?

>>>>Because, of course, she isn't.

>>>>Hill's conservativism was a convenient lie at the time of the Thomas
>>>>hearings.  Now that it is no longer necessary it is being dropped.

>>>What evidence do you have that this was a lie?  

>>Her own statements.  The people who are pushing her for head of EEOC
>>are also aware that this is a lie.  Why don't you ask them?  Do you
>>really think that they would be pushing her if she was a conservative
>>Republican?  (Of course you may just think that they are ignorant
>>idiots, but if so why don't you come out and say so?)

>Well, as far as I can tell, the only one seriously considering this is
>Rush Limbaugh.  So I guess I'll come right out and say that he's an
>ignorant idiot.

David, I seriously suggest you learn to read.  You can practice by
reading talk.politics.misc, where you will discover a number of
Clinton supporters enthusiastically promoting Ms. Hill.

Are they idiots?

>>>Why do you say that it is now "being dropped"? 

>>Because people are now pushing her for a position in the Clinton
>>Administration.  This would be pretty stupid unless the general
>>consensus was that it was no longer necessary to lie about her beliefs.

>>>Who is dropping it?

>>The people who are pushing her for an administration post.

>Do you think she would have had an administration post in the past if
>she was *not* a conservative?

David, I know this is going to be a shock to you, but once you get
down below a certain level in the federal beureaucracies you get
ordinary civil servants rather than political appointees.  Hill was
down at that level.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Term limits and seniority
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:59:45 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

With the term limitation guillotine starting its drop, Congresscritters
will have to reexamine the way committee selections are made to reflect
the realities of non-career members.

George Will's new book about term limits says that the seniority system
was started near the turn of the century as a revolt of new members
against arbitrary committee assignments by the congressional leadership.
With term-limited members, the seniority system seems to make less sense.
There should be a lot more newbies, and, especially until the other states
fall into line with term limits, they will be less likely to want to wait
for the important positions.

So what's a reasonable way to make assignments under the new system?
Going back to having assignments made arbitrarily by the Senate and House
leadership seems as silly as it did in 1910.  Is there a better way?

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	U.S. National Debt: $4,135,663,775,989
	Your Share: $16,169
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Headline of the Week :-)
Date: 22 Nov 92 14:43:11 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


FBI probing pullouts in Chelsea
-------------------------------   (Boston Globe, 11/21/92, page one)


Oh, all right, the "Chelsea" referred to was the town of Chelsea,
Massachusetts, not the President-elect's 12-year-old daughter, and the
lead paragraph of the article read:

      "Federal authorities are probing whether Anheuser-Busch Inc. and
   McDonald's Corp., which abruptly abandoned plans to build in Chelsea,
   were chased from the city by local officials seeking bribes and
   kickbacks, according to an official familiar with the investigation,"

but still... score one for the Headline Oversight Dept. at the Globe. :-)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60703 alt.rush-limbaugh:9949 talk.rumors:1331 alt.activism:18949 alt.politics.elections:24080
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>I don't remember the new number but recently it was announced that the
>average wage of women was now in the mid to upper 70's when compared
>with the average wage of men.  All of this gain came during the 80's
>when those evil republicans were supposedly trashing women and
>minority opportunities.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the
gap-closing was due to increasing wages for women, and what 
percentage was due to falling wages for men.

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 14:45:09 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov13.002038.101@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
]     Older people wonder why my generation feels alienated when many of us had
]such an affluent upbringing. There's more to life than money, boomers; there
]also needs to be a sense that someone actually gives a damn about you. I hope
]you remember that with your kids.

This is part of what is meant by "family values." Too bad the Republicans
managed to botch the message. When you consider that in the black ghettos,
80% of the kids live a significant time with only one parent, you 
see one reason why the amount of psychological problems and alienation is so 
high. Middle class families of most ethnic groups are also far more likely
to split up than in the past, as Steven experienced, with measurable, 
strong negative effects on the personality and success of the children.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60840 alt.rush-limbaugh:10007 talk.rumors:1343 alt.activism:18968 alt.politics.elections:24117
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Entreprise Zones
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov16.170941.19457@polari>, peterd@polari.online.com writes...

 [material from previous posts deleted]

>Sounds like racism to me: the people in the 'zones'
>don't have the skills, training or ability to handle
>complicated tasks.   Right.

*Why* don't they have those skills? It won't make any difference what long term
investments are made in education-companies that move to zones will either 
bring along lots of unskilled jobs which by necessity won't be able to pay too
much, or they'll bring along skilled jobs for which they'll need to import 
skilled workers right away instead of waiting for training to work.


>As to the question of 'enterprise zones forcing capital
>to go where it doesn't want to': wrongo.  Capital has
>no conscience [Marx] - it goes where it can find a return.

I shouldn't have said "forcing" in my original post-Kinsley used the more apt 
word "encouraging". The point is, if capital can't find a return there now, 
what makes anyone think that tax breaks will make any more desirable beyond the
immedaite tax advantage?

>The problem with enterpirse zones is that they are specialized
>'hot houses' under special conditions.  When the conditions
>change - the business's will restructure.

Ergo, as I said, they'll leave once the exemption expires.

						Daniel Case
						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

		"America is one of the few places where failure
		to promote oneself is widely regarded as being arrogant"
						-Garry Trudeau
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61010 ca.politics:9727 ba.politics:7279
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:43:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Nov18.042006.10939@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>#sodomy and
>#oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
>#protect the interests of the homosexual community.
>
>Since the law is the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, how is
>this (admittedly weird law) protecting the interests of homosexuals?
>
>I may be confused about the details, since in Virginia, oral sex
>qualifies as "sodomy", so it applies to both males and females.

	I was shocked to learn the other day that it is also a 
violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...this is just 
something they don't tell you in Basic Training. :)

	Of course, this may be a very old law. The Romans considered
cunnilingus to be a disgraceful and unmanly act.


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: History Repeats?(Re: What is a fiscal conservative?
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:35:19 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov13.214925.24184@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>All reports I have seen have said nothing of the sort. In fact, Bush's GDP
>number is suspected to be too high (spelled tampered with). I suspected
>this since all other economic indicators were too low to justify such a
>number.

Last friday's McPaper had two stories about the economy.  On the front page
they had a piece about how consumer confidence was up.  The percentage of
people who were hopefull about the economy was higher, the increase was quite
small, less than the usual margin of error for such a poll.  (I couldn't find
the margin of error listed in the article, but the USA Today's polls are
usually in the 3% to 5% range.)

In the business section they headlined the fact that the number of new
jobless claims was down.  They fact that this was the sixth month in a 
row, that such claims were down seemed to have been lost on the authors.
When these numbers came out last month, they did report it, but then they
went into another long piece about how many discouraged workers there were.
I guess there aren't anymore discouraged workers now that Clinton has
been elected.


-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri 'Droopy' Farenell)
Subject: which states passed term limits?
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 15:32:22 GMT

Does anyone have a complete list of the 14 states which 
passed term limit initiatives? And if possible, the specific
limit which was set. The second part isnt absolutely necesary
but the first part is what I really need. Thanks.
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU
CLARKSON '95			
HOBBES: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
  


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60814 ca.politics:9673 misc.legal:20144
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:01:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov17.215115.14260@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
> In article <13186@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# Regarding California law:
# 
# #1. Oral sex or sodomy between a 27 year old and a 17 year old, or 26 
# #year old and a 16 year is legal, but intercourse is not.
# #
# #2. Oral sex or sodomy is only a misdemeanor between a 24 year old
# #and a 14 year old.
# #
# #The law is not gender specific -- but it's clear that by making
# #sexual intercourse illegal for a girl under 18, but sodomy and
# #oral sex legal for a boy under 18, that the Legislature sought to
# #protect the interests of the homosexual community.
# #-- 
# 
# This statement is self contradictory.  If the law differentiates between 
# males and females then it certainly is gender specific.

The unlawful sexual intercourse law is gender specific.  The law
prohibiting oral and anal sex between adults and children is not.

# IF the differentiation is between male and female VICTIMS only, and not
# between perpetrators, then it would seem to be aimed at providing greater
# 'protection' for females from older perpetrators of BOTH sexes.
# 
# Still reprehensible, but not in the manner you imply.  Wouldn't the law
# prevent prosecution of a female, age 26, for having oral sex or sodomy 
# with a male age 16, and make it only a misdemenor between a female age
# 24 and a male age 14?  I.e. doesn't the law serve to protect the interests
# of predatory persons of both sexes, provided that they select males for 
# victimization?

Sure enough.  But women molesting boys isn't that common.  It happens,
and there have been prosecutions recently in this county for it, but
it is pretty darn rare.

# Isn't sodomy a term broad enough to cover a variety of acts both homo
# and hetero sexual?

Not in California.  We don't have the "sodomy is anal and oral sex"
definition of other states.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60473 alt.politics.clinton:17299 alt.president.clinton:481
From: roger@thoreau.nsc.com ( Roger Wakefield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Line Item Veto (was Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell)
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:07:06 GMT
Reply-To: roger@thoreau.nsc.com ( Roger Wakefield)
Organization: National Semiconductor

In article <1992Nov16.170637.109799@watson.ibm.com>, dwl@watson.ibm.com
(David W. Levine) writes:

> From what I can tell, there is interest in some sort of line item veto,
> the current question is what form it will take. A simple line item
> excision that requires a majority vote to override has been bandied
> about as a compromise. This strikes me as reasonable enough. It lets
> the president (And since this is a precedent setting thing, one may as
> well assume either of the same or a different party than controls congress)
> to point at individual items and ask "Do we need this" and force a majority
> of congress to agree it's needed, on the record, on that specific item.
> 
> One thing I would like to see is that excision require a role call vote,
> on a per item basis to override. I could easily imagine the logrolling that
> an "omnibuss measure to override the excision of various items" would
generate.
> 
> The current process does tend towards obfuscating responsibility for
porkbarrel
> legislation. Making it clear that a specific item was "owned" by a specific
> collection of represenatives and senators would help clear this up.

The goal of a line-item veto should be to allow the President to kill
pork-barrel attachments to bills without actually gaining the power to
make law.  Therefore, there must be some method of returning the bill to
Congress after the line-item veto. The best idea I've heard seems to be:
after the President strikes the offending portions of a bill, it returns
to the both houses, which can: 1.) by simple majority, pass the new bill
with the struck items ommitted, or 2.) by 2/3 majority, pass the
original bill (same as the old veto override), or 3.) kill the bill altogether.
No further amending would be allowed.

You cannot let the President line-item veto a bill into law.  To permit
this would be a wholescale change in the intent of the Constitution. 
Further, if George Bush could have done this, he would have passed a
bunch of the Congressional bills that contained tax increases to pay for
the costs of the bills, increasing both spending and the debt simultaneously.

--
Roger Wakefield
National Semiconductor, South Portland, ME
roger@thoreau.nsc.com
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Foley Follies ( & Others )
Date: 17 Nov 1992 16:09:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


       Watched Gephart and Foley on CNN last night.  Some of the
   funny parts -

       " The 1990 Budget agreement was a big sucess " - Foley

       " That is a myth...  It [ the budget agreement ] resulted in 
         TWO dollars of spending cut for every one dollar increase 	    
         [ in taxes ] " - Gephart

        " It [ the bugdet agreement ] was a major achievement " - Foley

        My favorite [ not during this program ] was the follwing
       paraphrase -

       " We'll have to increase the deficit for the next two years,
         otherwise we'll have to raise taxes " - Democratic coalition

        Hmmm.  I guess that in 1995 y'all will have to cut the deficit
        from 450-500 Billion, down to 141 Billion, in one fell swoop.
        Somehow, I am reminded of the small boy doing his homework.

        And this one -

        " George Staplococcus is doing his best to lower expectations 
          of the new presidency " - ABC, or NBC news

        Hey, don't waste your time, George.  Believe ME, my expectations
        are already pretty damn low.

        hehehehehehehe.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60640 ca.politics:9630 ba.politics:7219