HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:50:00 EDT
From:         GRACZ1@ITHACA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

> gun control.  This agenda has absolutely no justification in fact.  The
> platform actually advocates the confiscation of firearms from the American
> people.  According to the plan, more laws will be passed to harass the law
> abiding public.  Then, anyone not abiding by those laws will be considered
> criminals.  Finally, swift punishment for those criminals that violate the
> gun laws.  RUBBISH!  The federal government has absolutely no authority to
> restrict, register or confiscate the firearms of average citizens!  This
> knee jerk approach to crime is quick ride to tyranny.
>
>        it would be an interesting excercise to replace the word "guns"
>
>*************************Actually, it would be a pretty useless exercise,
>                         since "keep and bear arms" appears in the
>                         Constitution, and "possess and take drugs"
>                         does not.
>
                                --Missy P 2 B

              Which actually makes it a bit of grey area, since (correct me
              if I'm wrng) drugs aren't mentioned at all in the Constitution
              hmmm.  Of course there's that pesky "elastic clause".  And
              that bbrings up the question, is it indeed necessary and proper
              for drugs to be criminalized?


                      --G. Racz
From: gpn0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (GARY PHILIP NEWHART)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: What Should One Belive?
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:24:29 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

I heard on NPR last evening, that the Kuwaities had hired a public relations
firm to find the "buttons" that were to be pushed to shore up american support
for the then pending gulf conflict. What's going on? This is continuing
evidence that what the US stands up for, and what the public believes via the
published "facts"is a scam; I was coming down preety hard on the press because
of the biased Presidential politcs reporting, but i believe that the press
should very well be a stronger watch-dog if the "real" world of industry and
government continues as it is. I feel a strong revolt under foot!
      gpn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:01:35 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Sandy Patti

linda:

Anyone would care who Sandi Patti is because she sang "God Bless
America" at the close of the Republican National Convention.

Same reason anybody cares about Reba McIntrye or the theme from
La Cage Aux Folles.  Irony, essentially.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:17:00 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 11:57

 >  But isn't it at all embarrassing to realize that
 >you are no match for half a mind?
 >
 >                                 -Tim

 I guess not. YOU'RE STILL POSTING.
 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:26:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: To Missy: On Wrongness
              2 Sep 1992 11:13:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

How do you know that you "ought" to have an aversion to something?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:56:19 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
              1 Sep 1992 15:58:00 EDT from <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

No, Richard:

The question is simple.  Why are these things wrong?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:30:45 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
>I guess now's as good a time as any to explain my statement.  This
>statement was a sarcastic one.

Oh. Very funny.

>I merely
>wanted to show that what one believes should not be a basis for law.

So, for example, the fact that you believe that abortion is murder
is no basis for laws restricting abortion. I get it.

>I believe the only true *RIGHTS* which we have are those that make us
>able to contribute to society.

Glad to see someone willing to explain.
I believe, personally, that we have rights for the most part
which PROTECT us from having to contribute to society all the
time. Sure, contribution is good. But I don't want to have to
be engaged in it constantly. That's why I'm jealous of my rights.

>Also, I might include the general right
>to live in peace without fear of the government, qualifying it by
>emphasizing "general."--i.e. not in every case.

That sounds better, to me.
So, for example, women being able to live in peace without fearing
that the government might prevent them from having abortions.

>If you believe that abortion is not murder, and that you should be
>allowed to choose to abort, then if I believe that rape is not a vio-
>lation of one's body, then I should be allowed to choose to rape.

Er, that doesn't exactly follow. Could you explain the reasoning
more explicitly?

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:39:19 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Deadly Force

>This is the love that pro-lifers express for those who attack them.
>This is why they do not fight the police who come for them.  This is
>why they pray outside the clinics.
>
>--Missy P 2 B

Yah, right.  Those "lambs" just sit quietly in their homes or stand peacefully
on the sidewalk, minding their own business, while the police bust down their
doors or club them on the street.  Give me a break!!

                                                  ---roger

   Another in the series of topical George Bush quotes...
   ..(thanks to Gary Stephens - Dublin City University, Ireland)

"Ours is a great state, and we don't like limits of any kind. Ricky Clunn is
one of the great bass fishermen. He's a Texas young guy, and he's a very
competitive fisherman, and he talked about learning to fish wading in the
creeks behind his father, and he said, as a fisherman he said it's great to
grow up in a country with no limits."

      - Bush at a livestock and rodeo event in Texas, February 1992.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:40:40 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

>>If we look at the spending and the actual results, we see who's the
>>dog and who's the tail.  The hunting groups have been spending
>>hundreds of millions of dollars a year for decades.
>
>I'd like to look at the spending and the actual results.  Do you have any?
>I know I don't have those kinds of data available.  It'd be interesting.

On the federal level, look at the receipts from the various licensing
programs (migratory bird stamps is the big category that I know of)
and the recipts from the excise tax on guns and gun stuff.  I think
the latter program has Pittman in the name; both were set up in the
40s or earlier.

Yes, hunters do tend to ignore non-game habitats.  As long as the rest
of us do too, the appropriate response is to expand the definition of
game to include more habitats.

>Just out of curiosity:  how many CA hunters supported the referendum on
>mountain lion preservation?

They opposed it because it really was a land grab in SoCal.  It
doesn't have any environmental value either.  (BTW - People who
carefully read the law discovered that it gave them a CA
constitutional right to hunt mountain lions whenever they wanted to
and using almost any method, as long as they were willing to use an
appropriate "lure".  Oops.)

When mountain lions were scarce in CA (a result of a state-sponsored
predator abatement/bounty program), they were legally protected.
They're not scarce now, as people who insist on intruding in their
habitat discover.  If we develop their habitat, they'll become scarce
again.  There aren't many mountain-lion compatible uses of suitable
habitats and hunting is about the only PAYING use that qualifies; we
know what happens to places with no paying users.  Other low-impact
outdoors users simply won't pay, as CA and CO's "wilderness pass"
system demonstrated.

>Are any hunting groups involved in the efforts
>to deal with the heavy-metal poisoning of the interior wetlands?

They FOUND and popularized the problem.  Ducks Unlimited is involved
in the lawsuits and has been fighting over water policy for decades.
(The fishing groups are getting up to speed, but they're torn between
commercial and sport interests; when they cooperate, they're a force.)
The urban regions only recently got involved in the water wars and it
isn't obvious that their wins will be a good thing; we know what
they'll do with the water.

-andy
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:17:24 GMT

Ah!  The last day before the change of seasons...

Travis is indeed a great philosopher.  Notice how his Socratic
technique trips Jamie up time and time again.  Let's take a look at
a recent exchange, and try to learn from the master.

Travis:
>>I believe you are OBVIOUSLY wrong.
Jamie:
>Wrong that the schema is the same, or wrong that the inference
>is senseless?

Notice the subtle recursion!  What Travis meant, obviously, was
that the next sentence to be uttered by Jamie would contain an
obvious error!  And lo, it does!

Jamie, though a rather intelligent and competent Travis scholar,
was led like a child.

What is Jamie's error?  Why, as Travis points out, the error is
OBVIOUS.  The error lies in the assumption that Travis would have
any idea AT ALL what a 'schema' or an 'inference' is!

Note the subtle beauty of Travis's recursive approach.  Jamie's
error is in assuming that Travis knows something.  Yet, as we
all know, Travis knows nothing.  But then, since Travis anticipated
Jamie's words with a stunningly prescient aphorism, Travis obviously
knows something.  

Like a Zen master teaching with Koans, Travis weaves a web of
stunning paradox.  Existence precedes essence, yes... but only
through a fog of metaphysical presumptions.  Nothing naughts, but
Travis taught.

--Jimbo
  PhD student specializing in late 20th Century Kiddian Thought 


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:31:20 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: clarification for andy
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              28 Aug 1992 16:13:04 -0700 from <andy@SAIL.STANFOR D.EDU>

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:13:04 -0700 Andy Freeman said:
>>She wishes that there was a female equivilent of a vasectomy
>>which would not require surgery.
>
>Somehow that just doesn't make any sense.  (BTW - Vascectomies aren't
>100% reliable either, even when correctly done.)


Not only that, but a vasectomy *is* surgery...and it certainly is
an invasive procedure...it's just considered outpatient surgery.
I believe female sterilization can be done as a "bandaid" procedure
as well...and we certainly don't see the ladies riding around in
a wheelchair afterwards as some men have been seen to do...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: HOUSSAH5@EGAUCACS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Gilbert replies to "no. wrong. incorrect. misinformed.
              etc..etc..etc..........."
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:48:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"politics@ohstvma"
Original_cc:  HOUSSAH5


        In your lengthy but carefully planned posting, you did what you
thought of as being a clarification to some facts I overlooked (as you
think) in my original posting. You talked that the US went in the Gulf
"not necessarily for Kuwaiti oil". Well, I never claimed that. I said
that the US went there for oil FULL STOP. I said nothing about the
nationality of this oil- Kuwaiti, Saudi or even Iraki, why not?
Before you bump in trying to explain how the ties between USA and
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are strong, I wish you think about the
reasons these ties are so strong. It again reduces down to oil.
I know that you will tell me the the Saudis are  an important center
through which the States can stop the communist proliferation in the
Middle East, but then if you go back in time for a couple of years,
you might remember that at that time, the ex-USSR was already desintegrating
moreover, the (till then) Soviet Union would have never got involved in the
Gulf had it not be through an international movement pressuring them to
make this involvment. Gorbachov was far too occupied with his internal affairs
to think about an individual (or even a leading role) in a military involvment
any where in the world. If you don't believe me try to remember how limited
the Soviet role in the Gulf was.
Another thing, when you talked about the current situation in South Irak,
you decided to "leave out human rights abuse". Why? Just compare the abuse
of human rights in Irak and in Bosnia. If you don't know what's happenning
there just try CNN. this will get you more    I N F O R M E D....

-Gilbert
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:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:53:27 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Gore on the Environment

-andy:
>"Lately Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured
>into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor
>environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in
>Gore's words, `undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support
>for the difficult actions we must soon take'." [New Republic, 7-6-92]
>
>Does anyone want to confirm that TNR actually printed that?  (I
>haven't.)  Assuming that Gore actually said it (which is different
>than confirming that TNR actually printed it), does anyone want to
>argue the idea is a good one?  (Yes, it is an effective tactic.)

Yes, TNR actually printed that.  I think it was in an article by Greg
Easterbrook (sp?).  I would not be terribly surprised if Ehrlich said it;
Gore may have as well.  Is it actually happening?  That's a trickier
question.  My general impression is that journalists tend to publicize the
extremes (on any issue) more than the "center."  This could be a conscious
effort at self-censorship to move some political agenda, or it could be
because "extremes" tend to attract more viewers, sell more newspapers, etc.

Coupled with the market value of "extremes" might be the fact that
environmental issues tend to be pretty complex -- scientifically,
economically, politically, etc.  And I've never been terribly impressed
with the willingness or ability of the mainstream media to explore that
complexity and present it in a balanced fashion.  Is the idea a good one?
In the long run, I don't think so.  The result of focusing only upon
extremes, in my view, is to polarize the public to the point of preventing
the kind of serious discussion that would lead to realistic solutions.

Kerry
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Religious freedom
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:57:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <POLITICS%92082514065883@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET (Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet) writes...
> 
> *** Resending note of 08/25/92 11:24
> 
>  From Jumbo Dumbo Bimbo,   Dang these keys!
> 
> >p.s.  Just to set the record straight about the 'obscene' letter I sent
> >to Missy Justice... after a dozen or so letters back and forth trying to
> >seriously discuss theology and logic... after yet another ludicrous
> >response from her that indicated that she isn't interested in serious
> >discussion...
> >
> >I wrote: fuck off.
> >
> >And I meant it in the most loving manner possible.
> 
> I too have received a piece or two of private correspondence from Bimbo.  He
> certainly filled me with fear by threatening to "come down on you so hard...".
> 
> Ooooooooooooooh wow, uh, I'm impressed.


	Hey listen man: chill!
	You start getting those glowing phosphor dots that make up the 
screen excited to a critical mass and all kinds of nasty stuff could 
hap
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:16:00 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Religious freedom

 *** Resending note of 08/26/92 09:22


 >Do you suppose Jimbo means something, er,.....unsavory.....
 >when he promises to "come down on you"?

 >I know what *I've* meant by it, but that was long ago and far
 >away.....

 >-Missy P 2 B

 Missy?
 Wow, I thought I'd gotten hold of a 1-900 there for a second.

 ---Robert
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:05:07 GMT

Jamie wrote:
>>And maybe I'm starting to see Jimbo's point. Robert's Christian
>>respect for human life leaves a bit to be desired.

And Robert responded:
> You see Bimbo's point because you're in basic agreement with it.  Instead
> of an honorarium, "Logic Czar" appears to be some new form of mental
> disorder.

I just wanted to make clear to the relative newcomers to the POLITICS
world that Jamie and I are sworn enemies.  We disagree on a wide variety
of substantive issues.

The only reason that it might sometimes _appear_ that we are on the
same side is that we take a very similar approach to political issues...
namely, that rational discourse is the proper way to reach understanding.

We both have this silly habit, see, of stating our positions clearly
and without equivocation or appeal to authority.  We have particular
political positions and are willing to explain why.

--Bimbo 'more reasonable than thou' Wales

p.s. Does anyone know why this machine insists on telling my
middle name to the entire world?  I never told it my middle name;
I don't know how it found out!


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:13:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

>Excuse me, Richard:
>
>Could you please explain what makes you such an expert on rape?
>
>--Missy P 2 B

        I read a lot.

                                        Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:27:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: what I really want to know is . . .

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:51:14 -0400 KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU said:
> Why do Robert and Travis respond to everyone's posts but mine (pout, pout)?
>
> Kerry
> (if educators make lousy students, then someone fudged my grades :))

There|  I'm responding|  Happy now?  :)
-Travis
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, 4 Sep 1992 15:56:03 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

-andy:
>There are two ways to go about it.  The mountain lion benefits from
>the deer hunting habitat efforts.  (In CA, there was no "build up the
>mountain lion population" effort.)

What's the other way?  The reason I used the migratory songbird example is
that protecting summer habitats (which you might do by promoting hunting of
some more desirable "target" species that occupies the summer range) won't
help.  We need to protect the *winter* range.  I can sort of see how, if
flycatcher hunting caught on, those hunters might then make efforts to
protect winter ranges (in Costa Rica, e.g.).  But how can we make
flycatchers an attractive "target"?

>I think in terms of CA, which is islands of development in a sea of
>wild, at least in mountain areas, and the mountains do dominate CA
>geography.  (Some valleys aren't developed.)

The island/sea analogy is good, but whether an individual species' habitat
constitutes one or the other depends on the species.  Mountain lion habitat
in some parts of CA is very much "islands", in that local habitats are
separated from others by development and other ecological barriers.

>>What if the market demand for products is greater than the supply that can
>>be sustained through legal harvesting?  I think this is probably what I was
>>trying to ask :)
>
>You mean "what happens when the potential profit is high?"  (We know
>what happens when the market demand is greater than the supply; I
>don't have a Jaguar because price is an allocation measure.)  It
>depends on who gets the money.  If it goes to people who "produce"
>elephants, they can spend it on protecting their production base and
>increasing it.  If it goes to others or we assume that ALL elephant
>producers are stupid ....

I'm not sure I'm understanding this.  Suppose we've got two elephant
populations (maybe like in different regions or something).  One is
growing, one is in a bit of trouble.  Poaching is a problem in the latter
one, in part because the profit is so great (demand is high and supply is
limited).  OK, so we legalize hunting, and now the "producers" are getting
the money.  If demand remains higher than can be sustainably supplied, what
keeps the population in trouble from getting wiped out quickly and the
other from getting wiped out slowly?

I guess the larger question here is "how do we encourage people to use
resources sustainably instead of focusing on short-term profits"?  We could
just let our elephant hunters wipe out their herds and *then* find out it
was a dumb idea.  But that's not going to help the elephants much.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:33:57 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: double standards in the twin cities

>>Music trivia question: When the monkees toured in 1969, who was their
>>opening act?
>That's easy:  Jimi Hendrix
>Who was Tommy Roe's opening act in England in 1962?

  How 'bout a politics related trivia question...

  Who is the stupidest listmember?

  By the way, I'm making myself a delicious peanut butter
and jelly sandwich for lunch.  Really hits the spot after
gunning down a few Narragansett electric meter readers.
I have an idea - why don't we use this list as a forum
for flirting and inane conversation for all of us who
don't have lives or friends - how 'bout that?  Politics
schmolitics.  Let the subscriber beware.

                                 -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU