HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:30:20 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: Well fancy that
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Dunstan:

>Well, I've been called a lot of things in my time, but never a non
>native English speaker ! I can provide documentary evidence to show
>that my family has lived in England for 800 years.

What a surprise! I am sorry for the mistake. It really puzzles me
that a native speaker's writing can be so sloppy. You yourself
admitted that you 'over expressed' yourself when you wrote something
about 'gasing orphans'. And you didn't know that 'phantasy' is a
perfectly normal way of spelling the word.

Please don't take this as an ad hominem attack--being articulate
and being intelligent are not necessarily related to each other,
as you can tell by reading some of the posts on this list.

Sam.
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:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:46:02 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>On a much lighter note...
>
>> Or am I  watching too much LA Law? :)
>>
>
>"too much LA Law" is generally a contradiction in terms, with one
>known exception-- that being, watching so much LA LAW, that you miss
>CIVIL WARS, LAW AND ORDER, and all of the other courtoom drama on
>television nowadays...
>
>    As you might notice, I'm chomping at the bit to go to law
>school.  This undergraduate crap is the biggest waste of time/money
>that I have seen so far...

        :) It's not what you learn, it's how much you spend.

        I learned that after repeated delays made it clear that it wasn't what
I was doing for my thesis that counted, but how much money I had spent so far.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET>
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, 27 Jan 1993 08:58:36 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: sc case and FORD
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt461615@drew.edu>, TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET writes:
> The recent Supreme Court decision (Herrera) has interesting parallels
> to another tough case, Ford v. Wainwright (1986) ... for those with
> 7-11 guides, I'll furnish the page numbers later.

deleted is a disagreement that insane person can't be put to death.
He admits the guy probably was in some way mentally unstable/insane,
but that 3 gov't supported psychiatrists found he knew why he was
going to be killed.  He also notes that it was a well established and
widely held fact that the insane shouldn't be killed by the death
penalty.  Since the meaning of "cruel and unusual" changes with time
(even Scalia admits he won't support all the types of death oked in
1789) as noted as far back as Weems v. U.S. (1914), I don't see his
problem with Marshall's decision to stop him from being killed.  He
can be both against the death penalty and still think under the
standards of those who aren't, this is still cruel and unusual
punishment, right?

> Everyone, with any sense, would claim to be innocent and hear-say
> evidence from non-impartial witnesses blaming people already dead
> will be easy to come by.

Gregg v. Georgia, I repeat, said that "death is different", requiring
a high degree of review.  The claim of innonence was this week's
decision was not even allowed to have a federal hearing, except when
the evidence is extremely high.  Since many murders are never solved,
the fact new evidence will come a long time after the trial is not so
unlikely, though the fact that anyone will believe a convicted
murderer is.  So, they try other appeals that are more likely to
happen instead of trying to hang on to the strand of hope that new
evidence can be found -- if he/she had any way of doing this.  In the
case here the brother died, when people die we learn more about them
sometimes since they no longer are alive to hide things or need
protection from their crimes.

>    "whether the Constitution allows the execution of someone who
>        can prove true innocence"
>               (AP 1/26)

sure it is.  the need for proof is put rather high

>
>        ... we don't know the guy could "prove" anything !

we don't


>        ... and I don't think there is any dissent about executing
>              innocent people !

this is a misstatement for a concurrance disallows this fact, but
since the guy wasn't given a chance to show new evidence it indirectly
can very well occur.

>    or "a provable claim of innocence"
>        (Dunstan 1/26)

it wasn't given a chance

>  just theorizing,
>                   P.S.Ruckman,Jr.
>
just late for class

 -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:27:07 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Thu,
              21 Jan 1993 22:23:00 EDT from <CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: RE: Uncl: Clinton's balls

*** Resending note of 01/22/93 08:11

>BTW what has 48 million legs, 187 million handguns, and no conscience?
>I believe they call themselves the Christian New Right.
>T.

Only 187 million?  Hmmmmmm.  Someone forgot to count mine.

---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:02:55 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

>From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET

>yes, but at least one right, equality, is found solely in the 14th
>amendment and has no need to be incorporated into it.  So, 14th
>amendment rights are at issue, not just those in the Bill of Rights.
>Anyhow, it is the 14th amendment that is the source of the rights
>anyhow via the due process clause (by modern doctrine) or the
>privileges and immunities clause (maybe more to your liking).

Uh, that's true.
But I'm losing track of why this is important. :-)

>> The reason the original law could be used against the KKK was
>> that the Klan violated the second provision of the act (see below).
>
>the law was for the KKK to begin with, so isn't the whole act
>applicable?

I suppose that Scalia thinks the first clause couldn't even
be used against Klansmen who were doing precisely those things
that led Congress to pass the law in the first place!

(This is a good spot to mention: you said that Scalia favors
reading the "plain text" of laws, I disagreed. You are quite
right about his view of STATUTORY interpretation. So here
Scalia would simply ignore what Congress intended by the law.)

>ok, then explain why Scalia feels the right of travel is different
>from the right of abortion.  I'm still confused about this.

So am I.

There is long precedent for holding that the right of travel is
a right against other citizens, starting from US v. Guest.
Scalia seems to say only that it is perfectly obvious that
the right to abortion is a right against governments. One thing
he mentions is that it is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
This is a perplexing rationale, though, since the right of travel
isn't either! And anyway it is unclear why it should matter.

> You
>rose the fact that Scalia was differentiating between positive and
>negative rights, and since travel was protected (but was too weak here)
>under his eyes but not abortion, I thought they were on opposite sides
>of this split.

Actually, YOU said that the difference was between positive and
negative rights. I didn't say that.
I don't understand the rest of the above paragraph.

>this is dumb.  The Klan law was passed (KAT is also confused about
>this too, for reason) against private organizations like the KKK (or
>Operation Rescue), not the gov't.

By "passed against," I assume you mean "intended to be used against."
But as you said earlier, Scalia doesn't care about that. Or so he says.

>> Still haven't got a look at that NR article.
>>
>and why not? :-)

Ok, I got it now! Cool.


>P.S. The NYT has a humorous but true column today by a Graceful Dead
>member called "Bill of Rights Lite" that is worth a look.

The Graceful Dead. They'll be spinning in their graves.

Jamie
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:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:28:18 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
>    most of us didn't vote for clinton, either . . . :)

That is exactly what the quote from John Chancellor meant.  We wish
Clinton well, even though most of us didn't vote for him.



>    i think that one of these first months, the nation is gonna look at
> clinton and wish that george was back in the white house. it should be
> about 6 months before everybody realizes that bill is not up to the
> job, and then we have another 3 1/2 years before we can put someone
> competent in the white house. ethics. haitians. living with saddam.

EXACTLY.  After 12 years of Republican leadership, all of a sudden
Reagan and Bush are seen as the tyrants that made our country bad.
So, we elect Clinton to make things better?  Shyeah!  Right!  As if!


>    which reminds me. supposedly hillary will be "in charge of domestic
> policy", or so i heard on the radio. does this refer to the servants
> at the white house or something else?

Hillary is probably still cursing LBJ for the law he passed as soon
as becoming President prohibiting the President to appoint any
immediate relative to the Administration.  (i.e. JFK and Bobby...
Hmm.  Maybe some of the JFK-Clinton comparisons ARE justified!)



> empower america - kemp '96

Yes, I will support Kemp in 1996.  I may even work on his campaign
here in California.  But I have one small question.  WHERE IS JAMES
BAKER?  The day he decides to run for President, I'll be in
Washington to work on his campaign.  Any man that can talk the Arabs
into siding with Israel against Iraq, pull off the most complicated
negotiations, etc.  should easily be able to convince the American
people that he should be President.

    Considering he ran Reagan's and Bush's campaigns, I wonder if
he'll run his own...<smile>...  Probably do a better job than anyone
else would anyway...
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 12:33:21 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: new SC ruling
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Hi all,

Here's a rather obnoxious evaluation of the higher education system.
Please note that things might have been different if Hillary had been
in charge of California education reform instead of AR.  (Then, I'd
more than likely be illiterate-- therefore unable to use Internet,
and consequently, lacking in all of your wonderful company...)

> >
> >"too much LA Law" is generally a contradiction in terms, with one
> >known exception-- that being, watching so much LA LAW, that you miss
> >CIVIL WARS, LAW AND ORDER, and all of the other courtoom drama on
> >television nowadays...
> >
>         :) It's not what you learn, it's how much you spend.
>
>         I learned that after repeated delays made it clear that it wasn't what
> I was doing for my thesis that counted, but how much money I had spent so far.
>
> Brett'
>

Some other message said something about feeling sorry for me because
I'm not learning anything?  Sorry I didn't save it to reply to...
Anyway, I've known since I was 9 years old that I want to be an
attorney.  4 years of undergrad (or 3) are a waste of time unless
you're at Harvard/Yale and make friends with the future leaders of
Third World nations...

    Frankly, I know more about becoming an attorney from watching
courtoom drama (on television--listed shows-- and at the D.A.'s
office where I worked) than I will learn as an undergrad.  If this is
the case, why college (about $30,000 for my three years of UCLA
undergrad) required before going to law school?  Even Harvard Law
school accepts more music majors than any other group into their law
school (or so I was told by an Asst. Dean), saying that "they will
teach you all you need to know about law in law school."  IMHO, I'd
probably be able to handle law school better than some of the people
there now, and so I don't understand what college is for.

    Actually, college/waiting just might teach me humility, my life-
long nemesis....  Once I overcame that flaw, I'd be perfect...
<egotistic grin>...


--Stan Jacobs
        "Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair..."
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Bushwhacking Saddam
Date: 22 Jan 1993 15:08 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <01GTQXOHSNEM8Y5FA4@TOE.TOWSON.EDU>,  
       Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET> writes...
>A question for the 90's:
> 
>What if they gave a war and nobody would televise it?

Say, like, Angola?  East Timor?  Etc.?

Generally speaking, it would be there on the horizon with little public outcry,
and perhaps less support than the Space Invaders Gulf War.

							Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:01:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform

STAN JACOBS says:

>(She who was hailed as one of the nation's best attorneys
>long before anyone outside Arkansas knew who Bill was.)

Hmmm...must have been prior to 1978...that's when a piece
appeared in _Parade_ magazine, to the effect of stating
[obviously before the demon RWR arose to power] that Ted
Kennedy's best bet for running mate in 1984 is the young
Attorney General of Arkansas, 32 yr old Bill Clinton,
<one of the country's best and brightest rising political
figures...who soon will surely be Governor of his state>.


But I'll remember you had such high praise for Hillary.


-T.
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 11:18:19 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: honest question seeks honest answer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

>
> 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"?

Because it is much easier to justify in the military.  If there is
such resistance to their entry into the military that it causes a
large scale decrease in overall morale, that is detrimental.  In the
rest of America, you can justify freedom of choice, but when the
military sends people to war--with proof that a large de-moralization
reduces the efficiency of the troops and, therefore, increases
probability of casualties-- then, they have to weigh the importance
of discrimination against gays vs. overall troop morale, etc.

As Spock once told us, "Logic dictates that the needs of the many
outweigh the needs of the few, or the one..."  While such logic may
not be readily acceptable in American philosophy of individual
justice...

(i.e. John Rawls, Harvard professor of Philosophy-- A THEORY
OF JUSTICE, 1971--  "each individual possesses an inviolability
founded on justice that even the calculs of social interest as a
whole cannot override")

... in the military, utilitarianism is the basis of most decisions.
We sacrifice an entire unit of men in order to protect the lives of
the rest of the troops and preserve the MOST life.  Further (and more
concrete) examples can be provided if one doubts my point.


>
> 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?
>
> fred

Sorry.  I've never been drafted.  I do know that not registering for
Selective Service within 30 days of your 18th birthday carries a
heavy fine and a jail term.


--Stan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:58:00 CST
From:         "rufus t. firefly" <U9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >   i heard this a while ago, dunno where. appropriate, i think . . .
> >
> >   "republicans want to make everyone equally rich. democrats want to
> >make everyone equally poor."
> >
> Hmmmm.... The way I heard it was "Democrats want to take my money and
> give it to a bunch of poor people who haven't earned it and don't
> deserve it.  Republicans want to take my money and give it to a bunch
> of rich people who haven't earned it and don't deserve it.  Now they
> both agree on the basics; TAKE MY MONEY!"
>     toddddddddddd
> >rtf

  and a sane person would doubtless wonder "are there any politicians
who *don't* want to take any more of my money than is needed for the
defense of the country and upkeep of the roads?" and suddenly, a new
libertarian is born.

rtf
From: DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU (The Integral Differential)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan's legacy and the politics of the SC
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:36:09 GMT
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
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>        Yes! Let's appoint some qualified people to the Supreme Court.... the
>best 9 jurists in the nation... Like the Governor of New York, for example.
>How can you sack an SC justice?
>
>Tpby

        From what I've heard, Mario would rank on the same plane as Clarence as
far as qualifications go.  (Clarence said he thought he would be nominated, but
not until 1995...assuming GB II, of course.)

        I'm not too concerned about it, though.  Today's conservatives are
tomorrows liberals and vice versa.

        (Anyone remember the objections to Nixon's "conservative" picks?)

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:07:00 EST
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.OIT.UNC.EDU>
Subject:      Cap Gains (the famous comic book hero)
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU>

> >>        ........................  Every cut in the capital gains tax rate ha
> >>caused an increase in the revenues.
> >>
> >>Brett'
> >
> >So would every INCREASE in the capital gains tax rate.
> >
> >--KAT
>
> Bzzt. Both wrong. If CGT was 100% then nobody would ever realise their
> capital gains. If CGT was 0% there would be no revenue. Hence Laffer
> curves. If tax rates are unduly high, reducing them will probably
> increase the revenue, if they are unduly low, increasing them will
> probably increase the revenue. But how do you know which way to move
> them ......

Well, if capital gains are taxed at a rate significantly lower than
ordinary income, then the tax shelter industry goes into high gear
finding ways to disguise ordinary income as capital gains.  Hence,
capital gains tax collections rise.  If the rates are then made even,
this activity ceases, lowering collections.  Note that, like most
tax shelters, this has little or nothing to do with productive
economic activity.

(Obviously the two phenomena take place at once--people also realize
gains in anticipation of a rate increase and will also take advantage
of rate cuts, at least for a while.  But this activity is really just
an argument against changes in the rate.  The real question is, what
proportion of the revenue increase is caused by tax sheltering?
Since conversion of ordinary income into capital gains was a favorite
trick of tax consultants, I suspect that it is significant.)

So Brett's proposal (continued lowering of the capital gains tax rate
until revenues cease to rise) is really just a series of tax cuts for
the upper brackets.

Best,
Peter

> Dunstan
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 22:48:19 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Robert & Brett':
>
>Judging from the past, I think you are underestimating the unemployment
>number.  I predict double-digits.  Low double-digits, but
>double-digits nonetheless.
>
>Want to try for the national debt?  Inflation?  Misery index?

        ND: $4.5 Trillion (but we'll just raise taxes... :)
        Inflation: 4.5% and rising
        Misery: (basic) 12.8 and rising

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