HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:36:16 PDT
From:         Stan Jacobs <JACOBS@125LAW1.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Health Care Reform
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Well, list members, we have nothing left to fear when it comes to
Health Care Reform...  This morning's Los Angeles Times' major front
page article was on Clinton appointing Hillary to lead the Task Force
on Health Care Reform...  There are quotes within about his
confidence in her ability to "get the job done"...

The article, interestingly enough, points to a parallel.  As Governor
of Arkansas, Clinton appointed Hillary to lead the education reform
of that states school system.  What the Times *DID NOT* mention was
the fact that Arkansas now ranks 48 out of the 50 states in
education...

Three cheers for Hillary!  (Well there is an upside--- the economy
will experience an up-turn as millions of people scramble to travel
agencies to get the hell out of this country after HHC (that's
Hillary's Health Care) becomes our national HMO...



--STAN JACOBS

P.S. Sorry for such bad news so soon into the new Administration.
Most people thought we could make it at least three or four weeks
without too many major problems...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet>
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The longest line
             contained 0 characters
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:59:31 CDT
Comments:     Resending note of Mon,
              25 Jan 1993 15:14:43 CST from fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
From:         Robert Moss <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>
Subject:      Uncl: class discussion
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

*** Resending note of 01/25/93 15:22

>     Having worked for several years in corporate america, my experience
>has been that these decisions are made weeks or even months in advance
>of their disclosure to the general public. If you want to say that the
>results of the November election triggered the Sears problem you could;
>it wouldn't be correct but that's never stopped anybody before.

The decision was evidently made sometime last week.  They withheld the
news, I suppose, to avoid ruining anyone's weekend.

>Would you care to comment on IBM, GM, Silicon Valley job losses between
>November 1986 and November 1992? Using the Robert scale of whose to
>blame (da prez), the winner must be GHWB. I don't believe that, just
>trying to follow your logic.
>fred

IBM is having to adjust to a shift in demand from mainframe systems to
midsized systems and LANs.  After they get back up to speed, they'll
dominate this area just as they did the other.

GM suffers from piss poor management.  BTW, IBM probably has enough
cash reserve to buy GM.

Go ahead, blame Bush if you need to.  It's just like a liberal to blame
a man that's not in a position to defend himself. :)

---Robert
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 12:36:02 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram
              26 Jan 1993 12:55:22 -0400 from <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>

On Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:55:22 -0400 The Integral Differential said:

>>It is amazing that this claim is made many times but one
>>rarely sees the proof.
>
>        Ask and ye shall receive:
>
>        Year:   Revenue from cap gains (millions):
>
>        ..............
>        1968    $7,200
>        1969    $5,900_________rate hike here
>        1970    $3,600
>        ..............
>        1977    $8,104
>        1978    $9,104________rate cut here
>        1979    $11,669
>        1980    $12,459
>        ...............
>        1986    $49,700_______rate increase here
>        1987    $32,900_______crash here
>        1988    $38,900
>        1989    $36,020
>
>        And I'm searching high and low for the 1990 numbers.
>
>Brett'

I asked for a proof not mere data.  I think Peter did a
good job of pointing out why this data does not
necessarily prove your assertion.

One more thing.  Maybe maximizing revenues should not
be our only goal.  How about perceived fairness and
implied messages.  Say the middle bracket for income
tax is 25%.  Now any capital gains tax lower than this
gives the perception that the society rewards gains by
buying stocks and real state more than earned income.
I for one think that that is the wrong message.  Why
not consider capital gains (minus the inflation part)
as income and tax it at the same level.  THEN, one can
argue for lower taxes across the board.

I agree with Peter that reducing capital gains tax is
simply giving free gift to bunch of already rich
people.

--KAT
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 17:34:01 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Bray v. Alexandria [Jamie's response]

>From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
>>The first. Women-seeking-abortions are not a class in the relevant sense.
>>
>>Actually, I think Scalia was correct about THAT.
>
>Clarification, please?  I know they're not a class in the taxonomic sense,
>but how does one define a class of protected persons (or whatever)?

Oh, gosh, I knew you'd ask me that.

(Not a class in the taxonomic sense! Hmm.
I suppose Jesuits could not constitute a class since we know that they
constitute orders.)

Ok, here's the deal. The question is one of interpreting Equal Protection.
Suppose a law denies you equal protection because of your membership
in some group. Is that unconstitutional? Well, what if the group
is "All murderers"? Obviously, the law can single out murderers
as a group and treat them differently from the way it treats
everyone else.
On the other hand, suppose the group is "All women." A law that
singles out women as a class probably violates equal protection
(though in my opinion, anyway, it's really more complicated than
that).

Ultimately, we'd like to have a theory to tell us which classifications
CAN be the basis of legal discrimination and which cannot. I don't
think that the Court has agreed on any cogent theory. Myself, I think
the relevant issue is whether the classification is one of
bigotry or legitimate purpose. But then again, I'm not perfectly
sure I can explain what that difference is, in uncontroversial,
verifiable terms!

Anyway, in the absence of a good theory, the Court at least has
agreed on certain specific classifications as "suspect" or
"invidious." Race is one. Sex is another. Religion is too.
But as Scalia points out, classifying people by a kind of
behavior you object to, and can reasonably have some objection
to, could not be the kind of classification that threatens
equal protection.

Women-seeking-abortions is precisely the kind of classification
by a kind of behavior that people reasonably object to. (Well,
I suppose the "reasonable" is arguable, but *I* wouldn't argue
against it, and obviously Scalia wouldn't either.)


Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 15:25:56 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Musical Presidents
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

(STUFF DELETED)

>   I think this is what makes sense of the otherwise baffling alliance of
> libertarians and soak-the-poor types on the right. They seem to share the
> comforting delusion that there is some magic hand that will *of itself*
> repair the damage of criminal mismanagement. They both say "all we have
> to do is spend less, and the situation will fix itself." The tragedy is
> that no matter how many times this fairy tale gets repudiated by history,
> the wheel turns round to give these amoral crackpots another chance.

This, I guess, is why I'm not really into libertarianism right now.
Most attempts at a "Perfect Society", from the _Republic on down,
are based on *removing* things from society, which CANNOT be done.

It's like removing an unknown from a math problem: you get a wrong
answer.

> MWM

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
POLITICS, n:
        From the Greek "poly", meaning many, and "tic", meaning
        little bloodsucking insects.

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchnik of Dictionaries
(aka Larva, Trip Buster, Dave Zero, Didactic Dave)
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu

POLITICS, n:
        From the Greek "poly", meaning many, and "tic", meaning
        little bloodsucking insects.

From the Desk of Dave,
Apparatchnik of Dictionaries
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
POLITICS, n:
        From the Greek "poly", meaning many, and "tic", meaning
        little bloodsucking insects.

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU,
             @MIZZOU1.missouri.edu:CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:30:11 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Uncl: Business Optimism
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.bitnet@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu

I think unemployment at the end of January, 1994, will be 7.7%. VMS
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 21:25:05 PST
From:         Jonathan Fisher <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: 12:01 PM
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> >Assuming a version of Bill that is genetically engineered to run
> >the Oval Office (excuse me while I delve into SF), the real problems
> >of America are difficult to deal with. It took nearly 12 years of
> >our support for Saddam Hussein to become the bad person we all know
>
>         Whoa!  Iraq was on the A list for enemies right up until they invaded
> Iran, at which point they went on the "lesserr of two evils" list.  There
 wasn't
> a "tilt" towards favoring Iraq until 1987, when it looked like they would lose
> to Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
>         And Iraq was, right up until the failed coup, a client of the USSR.
bzzzt.  Sorry Brett'.  The United States 'tilted' toward Iraq virtually
immediately.  We have been supplying Saddam with money and arms for over
a decade.  It could also be that they receieved money/arms from the USSR
as well.
>
> Brett'
>

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:45:03 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Subject:      Re: Supreme Court decision

>>Huh?  Since when have civil rights NOT been a weapon?  That's pretty
>>much the whole point.
>
>"Civil rights" (I assume that you mean civil rights laws/statutes) are
>considered a weapon by those who seek to restrict others civil rights
>for their own benefit; they are considered a guarantee (though like
>all guarantees, only as good as the intentions of the issue) of fair
>treatment.

Yeah right.  The right to protest isn't a weapon.  (Hint: the truth
value of that statement does not depend on what is being protested.)

>>Or, are you folks all depressed because you can't figure out how to
>>have "freedom of good speech"?
>
>I have no problems with free speech, (I practice it myself and you are
>free to listen or not) but when that speech becomes a threat of violence
>or actual violent acts, I (and most people) draw the line.

Nice weasel words.  It isn't a threat of violence when people scream
fuck the draft, but screaming "ban abortion" is.

-andy
--
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:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:44:07 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: CGT (was Re: William Jefferson Clinton -- anagram)
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:16:17 -0400 The Integral Differential said:
>>
>>>        ........................  Every cut in the capital gains tax rate has
>>>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
>

        Bzzt.  I wasspeaking historically, so the statement still holds. :)

>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 ......
>
>Dunstan

        Keep lowering them every couple of years or so until revenues fail to
increase.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:54:05 CST
From:         fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      fun with statistics

Brett' questions Hillary's leadership qualities since "AK (I never knew
Hillary lived in Alaska!) was 48th in education under her direction".
This leaves one question and one observation.

What was Alaska prior to Hillary's appointment? They couldn't have
been any worse than 50th or better than 45th. That means they either
a)improved B)stayed the same or c)got slightly worse.

When the gipper took office, our standard of living, including jobs,
health care availability, and education was within the top five. Now
we are listed as low as 12th in some catagories such as teenage
pregnancies and access to health care. That means that we fell from
the pinnacle and hillary had nothing to do with any of this, unless
she was directing policy from Alaska. Hillary will not be formulating
any policies, she will be identifying policy objectives, seems like
a good use of public funds if you can find a successful lawyer who
will do the work for free.

fred
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:07:38 -0700
From:         Dom Maddalone <DMADDALONE@UH01.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Monopoly
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Kerry, sweety-baby-cookie-honey:
> Exhibiting a preference that people you disagree with "go directly
> to jail" is the first sign of fascist tendencies.  (That is a joke--
> NOT an offer to sign up for the "define an elusive political concept"
> contest.)

   Aren't we touchy.  From someone who earlier made sure thatthe last posting
contained "a JOKE" I would expect the same latitude.  I guess not.

> You might consider a 12-step program.  There might be an opening in
> the "Adult Children With No One To Blame But Themselves" group.

    Oh, those repartees.  I can hardly stand them.  This isn't the
voice of experience, is it?

> Actually, this is kind of fun.  Not quite giving as good as you
> get, but getting close.

    Ditto.

    Dom Maddalone, dmaddalone@uh01.colorado.edu
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 15:44:01 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hillary & Health Care
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>
>>>The "AK was 48th in education" is a useless statistic, so sticking
>>
>>        How so?
>>
>48th?  How is that measured?  What other scales are their to rank

        Rankings for scores on standardized test.  (Those stupid "fill in the
circle" things we had to take every two years.)

>states?  How does Arkansas fair there?  What kind of ranges are we
>looking at?  (i.e. if the difference between 50th and 40th is a small
>percentage then the states are roughly equal and the rankings less
>meaningful.)  What was AR (hi NINAR :) ranked when Hillary copped the
>post?  How have states of similar rank changed rank in the same period?

        50th.

        Don't know.  But if I was in charge and went from 50th to 48th I
wouldn't use that as the basis for my re-appointment :).

>Bushy muddied the waters by tossing about several figures like this
>during the campaign.  Billy responded by further muddying the waters
>with equally useless numbers.  Those fooled by such "statistics" are
>often amused by cheap, parlor magicians.  No accounting for smarts.

        Kinda like "worst economy in 50 years"?
:)

...
>>        Is it possible that you're only saying that because (gasp) we're men?
>>:)
>I had a vaguely witty retort, and then I realized, I'm not sure I
>know who you are referring to with the "we".  We the list members, we
>the American people, we the politically aware?  These groups are not
>exclusively male.  We as in todd and Brett'?  Then no.  It's just
>that I make a point of not overlooking the obvious, and in this case
>it seemed like the obvious was at or near the heart of the problem.

        We means the males present, of course :).  I couldn't include the whole
list for obvious reasons.  The point being, I think most of us are beyond
things like that.

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:         Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:10:56 -0500
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Zoe Baird
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

   I'm back and I'm met with constitutional theory in my email box.
I'll deal with it later when I actually read it through.  I would like
to here deal with Zoe Baird.  Briefly I think she was shafted and was
a scapegoat.  Loads of people are in her situation with the state of
day care and the like today, including two people to run for governor
in NJ (including the woman who almost beat Bill Bradley).  She erred,
but in the context of why she erred, she didn't deserve to be denied
her position because of the infraction.  We have a Commerce Secretary
now with more questionable dealings than Zoe's.  Her conservate
positions seem to me helped her shafting -- she would of offered the
kind of diversity Clinton spoke of before he set up his Cabinet,
diversity of belief/views, not just sex or race. I'm glad (in a way,
in another way more questioning of some might have been warranted) all
the other Cabinet officers got in ok, but Zoe Baird should have been
among them.

     -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:02:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Re: smoke smoke smoke that cigarette

>-andy notes that 3,000 is still at least an order of magnitude
>      less than MD's kill through "misadventure"

Someone was good enough to find the exact numbers the EPA put out
about second-hand smoking deaths...how 'bout -andy backing up
his predictable rhetoric with some numbers of his own (about the
so-called MD murders)?

Here's an analogy far more meaningful to this particular issue:

From  _No Smoking: The Ethical Issues_ by Robert E. Goodin
reprinted without permission

"Compared to the more than 300,000 people estimated to die annually in
the United States from their own smoking, such numbers [3,000 estimated
passive-smoking deaths] are undeniably small.  But they should be seen,
in the words of the official British report, as 'small but not negligible'
(Frogatt 1988, apr.69).  Even by that modest count, passive smoking
still kills more people than all airborne pollutants regulated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, asbestos excepted (Repace & Lowrey
1985, p.12).  And the only reason asbestos kills more people, come to that,
is that more people are exposed to it for prolonged periods.  Per person
exposed, 'the calculated and observed excess of lung cancer produced by
passive smoking is some 50 times greater than that estimated to be the
effect of 40 hours a week exposure to asbestos in an asbestos-containing
building' (Sir Richard Doll, quoted in Jenkins et al. 1987, p.36)."


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU:KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:27:32 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      military ban

Hi all:

Could someone clarify what happened today regarding the military
ban of gays?  I watched the news on it, but I came away with the
impression that essentially nothing happened, and I'm not quite
sure what is going on with it.

Thanks,

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:57:00 CST
From:         TI0PSR1@NIU.BITNET
Subject:      7-11 guide fails again

For those who do not consult the 7-11 guide to the Supreme Court :
    The prongs of the Lemon Test concern :
          - a strictly secular purpose
          - whether an act or a law advance or inhibit religion
          - whether there is an excessive government entanglement
    In Stone v. Graham (a major case on the topice if there ever was
    one!) the Court did rule against the hanging of the 10 Command-
    ments in public schools, despite the fact that they were purchase
    d through private money and no attention was directed to them via
    school officials


    P.S.Ruckman, Jr.
       :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU